IONS Discussion Thread Comments: Consciousness: The questions science must answerhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/1. Consciousness depends primarily on a specific network of regions in the cortex (the wrinkled surface of the brain) and the thalamus (a walnut-sized structure buried deep in the interior). Some of these regions are important for determining the level of consciousness (the difference between waking and dreamless sleep) while others are involved in shaping conscious content (the specific qualities of any given experience).
2. Researchers have now discovered that many cognitive functions can take place in the absence of consciousness. We can perceive objects, make decisions, and even perform apparently voluntary actions without consciousness intervening.
3. Mammals share much of the neural machinery important for human consciousness, so it seems a safe bet to assume they are conscious as well, even if they can't tell us that they are.
See the full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-scienceen-usThu, 12 Dec 2013 10:22:56 -0800Fallensoulhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7303Mike, there is a science that already has answers to the question of consciousness. The problem is the dogmatic idea that only modern science which accepts its reality on the empiric laws of physics and chemistry. That limited view will not provide any significant answers to the problem of consciousness, no matter how hard you try to research.
And yet it doesn't take that much intelligence to appreciate that this current modern scientific view is irrational. Just take evolution as an example. If one carefully watches this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Vf6MvBiz8 any rational person would agree that the complexity of the design features inherent in the DNA is enough to show that an intelligent agent produced the DNA code. That means a conscious being. But because the implications of accepting these facts are so against the grain of this secular world, we have to continue to be indoctrinated that only empirical science can offer answers to these questions.
Grow up.
Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:05:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7303dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7320Is the phrase "Grow Up" a Vedic term?Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:26:25 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7320dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7321My view of the consciousness problem has expanded to beyond the mind/brain focus. While the brain appears to remain a key component, we must also view the brain as a part of a whole system. The heart and enteric systems both have neurons like the brain, and their interactions therefore are worth consideration.
Additionally, scientific research has begun to examine how framing the discussion around consciousness alone might be misleading. There is evidence that the unconscious aspects of the mind actually act as the executive function and that consciousness plays a considerably difent role that we might acknowledge.
That said, Antonio Demasio's book "Self Comes To Mind" is well worth the time it will take to read it. It is described in the following ways:
"(H)e alternates between some exquisite passages that represent the best popular science has to offer and some technical verbiage that few will be able to follow. He draws meaningful distinctions among points on the continuum from brain to mind, consciousness to self, constantly attempting to understand the evolutionary reasons why each arose and attempting to tie each to an underlying physical reality. Damasio goes to great lengths to explain that many species, such as social insects, have minds, but humans are distinguished by the "autobiographical self," which adds flexibility and creativity, and has led to the development of culture, a "radical novelty" in natural history."
"Here, in his most ambitious and stunning work yet, he rejects the long-standing idea that consciousness is somehow separate from the body, and presents compelling new scientific evidence that posits an evolutionary perspective. His view entails a radical change in the way the history of the conscious mind is viewed and told, suggesting that the brain’s development of a human self is a challenge to nature’s indifference. This development helps to open the way for the appearance of culture, perhaps one of our most defining characteristics as thinking and self-aware beings." Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:48:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7321James Davishttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7322" Consciousness depends primarily on a specific network of regions in the cortex..."
I;m thinking consciousness as it functions through the physical brain depends on the brain. Then again, consciousness shapes the brain and exists independently of it. The science of the brain is the external node of a larger future science of many dimensions.Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:23:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7322dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7337Re Consciousness...."exists independently of it" (the brain).
Brain injury shows that this is not the case. If the brain injured consciousness can alter. There is little evidence of a consistent identifiable "self" that would exist beyond the body/mind construct since it is tenuous within the body/mind construct. Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:08:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7337Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7339The assumption that mind and memory are stored in the brain is a false premise. The brain is more like a television set that receives messages from the memory and mind. As far as materialistic science answering any realistic and scientific question on consciousness don't hold your breath. Materialistic science is a religion and you probably know how hard it is for people to change their religion. They think they already know all the truth so don't bother them with any facts. They say they will get around to filling in the details about consciousness some time soon. You would be better of watching compost make because there is no real effort to address any questions on consciousness until the high priest of materialistic science, now vested in Richard Dawkins, gives his blessings.
Rupert Sheldrakes new book "Science Set Free" is worth the money.Wed, 01 May 2013 09:29:46 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7339dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7340Right, what has science ever done for us? ;-)
So what "facts" are scientists ignoring?
Some commenter here seem to want it both ways, to condemn science and then point to Sheldrake, a scientist, as the answer, all the time forgetting the IONS is dedicated to scientific investigation for evidence.
Sheldrake has his theories, but the "brain as TV set" suggestion is still science and more importantly, theory.
Those who say that science is a "religion" would need to demonstrate that they know anything at all about "science," or more importantly that their own beliefs are their "religion."
Wed, 01 May 2013 13:15:00 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7340Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7342I like the idiom that the Mexicans have that goes something like this " The donkey talking about some other donkeys big ears". Science is a fascinating subject of investigation unto the unknown. Consciousness is a subject that not much is know about and should be high on the investigation agenda. The placebo effect is currently being studied by a consortium of large pharmaceutical companies to see if they can some how block its effect especially when the placebo is more effective than a chemical costing a billion dollars in research. So something will be discovered about the placebo effect however we may never hear about it. It won't be a subject of any scientific conference presentation (religious sermon) I personally think they are throwing good money after bad. Even a lobotomy may not block the placebo effect.
Science Set Free is written for scientist. It sheds light on why subjects like consciousness aren't taken seriously by most of the organisations funding research. Every scientist searching for truth should read "Sciencs Set Free".
What should a real scientist be? Here is one answer:
"Children are born true scientists. They spontaneously experiment and experience and re-experience again. They select, combine, and test, seeking to find order in their experiences - "which is the mostest? which is the leastest?" They smell, taste, bite, and touch-test for hardness, softness, springiness, roughness, smoothness, coldness, warmness: they heft, shake, punch, squeeze, push, crush, rub, and try to pull things apart.” ― Buckminster FullerWed, 01 May 2013 15:20:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7342Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7344If solar storms interrupts our TV viewing because the satellite transmission is interrupted we wouldn't take our TV to a repair shop to open it up to look inside for the problem. The scientific search for memory within the brain has yielded nothing because memory is not stored in the brain just as the image of the TV is not stored in the TV set. Brain injuries disrupt memory reception just as cutting circuits inside the TV set disrupts it reception. If it were true that memory was stored in the brain then we would lose it all when we died. This flies in the face of life after death. For those who disbelieve in life after death, memory stored in the brain is solid doctrine. For the billions of believers in life after death memory being stored else where, than in a time space brain, makes perfect sense.Thu, 02 May 2013 01:08:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7344dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7346 Re: "The scientific search for memory within the brain has yielded nothing because memory is not stored in the brain"
This statement would be laughable if I didn't know that the writer was sincere, albeit misinformed. This is the statement of someone who ignores scientific research or reads very little of it.
What type of memory is the commenter discussing, short-term memory long-term memory, autobiographical memory? Does it follow that all other animals are "believers" with memory stored elsewhere merely because it fits religious dogma?
Research into memory is plentiful and has created many treatments of memory issues.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2008.21029
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AYsXGnarXKUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA29&dq=autobiographic+memory&ots=ZAsW5UQ74A&sig=lx5T84xTSnI8PTv3lkeA4pvbMT4#v=onepage&q=autobiographic%20memory&f=false
Still, the question under consideration here is consciousness, and Demasio's writings are not being challenged here in any meaningful way.
Thu, 02 May 2013 09:15:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7346James Davishttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7347Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion
http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/
Thu, 02 May 2013 15:22:55 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7347dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7348Comments posted at the article 10 Reasons.... include these:
hs ago
Science, is greatly misrepresented in this article. Look up the scientific definition of a theory before you dismiss it so carelessly.
Joke of a list.
315 6 •Reply•Share ›
Xyroze Wtfdidiread • 5 months ago
I really have to question the validity of one's claim to being a "Biologist with a PhD in Neurosciences" when they won't even attach their name to the article.
That means that the author either is completely full of shit, or knows that it would completely ruin their career if it got out into the professional community that they don't actually understand how science works.
JFrater should really remove that line at the beginning, it gives the illusion that the list might have a degree of credibility, and makes the site look ridiculously inept.
129 •Reply•Share ›
Canadianguy Xyroze • 5 months ago
Yes, the moment I saw that the first line in the description was a logical fallacy (an appeal to authority), I had a feeling the list was going to be biased.Thu, 02 May 2013 23:59:30 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7348charliethttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7349Dustproduction
You've been around IONS for a while now, always commenting and usually berating everything with your abundance of wisdom. Just wondering, what are your credentials, your life experiences, etc.? Have you ever died and came back? Have you ever had a psychic experience? Are you a Sheldon Cooper? Have you ever worked in a position that has given you special insight into life, the mind, or death?
I won't answer any comments you make, I don't argue, I just observe and speak my mind.
Fri, 03 May 2013 09:04:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7349Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7350"Research into memory is plentiful and has created many treatments of memory issues.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2008.21029
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AYsXGnarXKUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA29&dq=autobiographic+memory&ots=ZAsW5UQ74A&sig=lx5T84xTSnI8PTv3lkeA4pvbMT4#v=onepage&q=autobiographic%20memory&f=false
There has be plenty of research similar to the above which only states where the brain receives its memory not where it is stored. I guess making comments here is ok for someone paid to be a nay sayer. Finding work nowadays is difficult. Much time and money has been wasted on meaningless research. Common folk seem to have more understanding of what they are experiencing in life because they are conscious. I have observed a few people who are walking around or commenting on blogs that are unconscious. anesthesia for example is not difficult to render a person unconscious, it's the waking them up that is difficult.
I too never criticise or argue I just make observations. And as grandma use to say "if the shoe fits wear it".Sat, 04 May 2013 08:52:51 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7350James Davishttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7352"Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time: The brain is a hologram enfolded in a holographic Universe."
http://books.google.com/books?id=-YZqPmK8jAUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+holographic+universe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WlSFUaySK8iMiALYgYGAAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
"Quest of Hologramic Memory
I am an anatomist. I say that with pride and satisfaction, even now. And during much of my career, I was certain beyond a conscious doubt that the truth about life would reduce directly and explicitly to the architecture of the things that do the living. I had complete faith, too, that my science would one day write the most important scientific story of all: How a brain gives existence to a mind. But I was wrong. And my very own research, which I call shufflebrain, forced me to junk the axioms of my youth and begin my intellectual life all over again."
"In the mid-1960's, while searching for a system that would allow me to extend my theory from regeneration to memory, I decided to perform experiments with the brain. Hologramic theory had just begun to emerge as I was gearing up.[5] Its predictions were at odds with virtually everything else I believed. Hologramic theory predicted that memory cannot be explained by the structure of the brain.
"What kind of a nitwit would seriously believe a thing like that?" I asked a senior colleague. "Don't we use legs to stand on, teeth to chew with, bronchioles to breathe through? Sperms swim with their tails. Hairs curl or don't curl depending on the detailed structure of their proteins. Even genes work because of molecular anatomy. Why should the storing of mind be different?"
Hologramic theory not only stirred my prejudice, it also seemed highly vulnerable to the very experiments I was planning: Shuffling neuroanatomy, reorganizing the brain, scrambling the sets and subsets that I theorized were the carriers of neural programs. I fully expected to retire hologramic theory to the bone yard of meaningless ideas. I had begun licking my canine teeth like a mink who has cornered a chicken. I even began considering which scientific meetings would be best for the announcement of my theory. I should have awaited Nature's answers. For hologramic theory was to survive every trial, and my own theory went down to utter defeat."
http://www.instinct.org/texts/shufflebrain/shufflebrain-book01.html
Sat, 04 May 2013 11:35:12 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7352186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7354 It is only an observation and popular opinion that neural networks are all that is necessary for awareness as the explanation fits observed phenomena. But this is completely wrong and bases a pronounced judgment upon a narrow set of observations probably caused by the familiarity of electrical circuits and their ability to mimic life. The two models do not prove anything. Because there is a neural network in the brain does not mean that deeper actions occur which are related to quantum awareness with a relationship to time and space are not masked by the more familiar actions. And it is irresponsible to call it a final answer. It is the responsibility of experts to express an opinion that is all that it is and you should in no wise take their pronouncements as final. That is the other fact of science when final statement is made by science on any issue the need for science will be over but men must still live. Science will then feel like religion in its staid opinion. To say it seems is more truthful. Men feel this in their inner man.
Indeed if the body can function with out the presence of awareness then does not it indicate that the circuits are not the sole author of self awareness. They assume that self awareness has collapsed and the circuits are running the show. Or is it that the self awareness has left in a relation ship to time and space and is otherwise or other place involved and the body is designed to function in its absence, at least for a period of time. Senses, If one hears vibrations one hears, If one sees light frequencies one sees, If one feels the passage of time it is a real energy and we move through time in the present moment as it morphs into the next. If one feels gravity is it not a sense. Awareness violates time and space, everyone has subtle precognition, which is actually a fully interactive exchange of presence with their personal future not just a sensing. You change to meet your future and your future changes to meet you now... Time is fully interactive and is changing all the time, the only enigmas occur when men try to apply their self importance as the center piece of reality.
Sat, 04 May 2013 11:57:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7354dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7360
Let's acknowledge what this discussion is about, and that is, "The questions SCIENCE must answer" about consciousness.
There are plenty of other discussions that address other points of view about "consciousness" or whatever meaning the word itself is understood as.
Secondly, let's acknowledge that, as it's name indicates, IONS is a science oriented organization. To bash all of science is to detract from the very work the IONS is undertaking.
Finally, discussions need not be debates, they can be dialogues.
Re: "There has be plenty of research similar to the above which only states where the brain receives its memory not where it is stored."
Please provide a few such articles.
To say, where memories are "STORED" in itself might be a crude concept. Memory could be an emergent property of complex neuronal activity. But it does little good to promote discussion with others that resist an understanding about what is already know of the processes of long term memory and short term memory and working memory.
""Working memory refers to a short-term memory system used to complete a task, such as remembering a phone number, a grocery list, reading comprehension, or something else not intended to be stored in long-term memory," says corresponding author Louis Matzel, professor of psychology in Rutgers' School of Arts and Sciences. "
"One type of these inhibiting cells acts in a particularly fast and efficient way and is therefore thought to be crucial for memory formation and information processing in neuronal networks. Scientists from Freiburg and the UK were able to specifically switch off this cell type and to observe the consequences for memory formation. Surprisingly, they found that working memory is highly dependent on fast inhibitory cells, whereas spatial reference memory can operate without these neuronal metronomes.
In the journal Nature Neuroscience, Marlene Bartos from the Institute for Physiology I and the Bernstein Center of the University of Freiburg and her colleagues Peer Wulff from the University of Aberdeen and William Wisden from the Imperial College London describe how they were able to specifically switch off these fast inhibiting "interneurons" in the hippocampus of mice. This part of the brain is central to the formation of spatial memories. When the interneurons' output was switched off, the mice behaved completely normal."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/tsai-alzheimers.html
Sat, 04 May 2013 14:05:35 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7360dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7361
The IONS newsletter has raised some points regarding consciousness, some interesting, some disturbing, that are germain to the discussion here. It is in regard to a TEDx Talk by Rupert Sheldrake which I had previously mentioned in discussions here.
It started off saying, "In recent weeks a public controversy has emerged over scientific research into the nature of consciousness. It involves IONS scientists, as well as some of our colleagues, and may reflect shifting attitudes about frontier research, so we want to share a little about it with you here."
The disturbing comment that was included says, "TED's actions, based on recommendations from its anonymous "Science Board," kicked off a heated Internet discussion and shed light on how some segments of the scientific mainstream tend to stifle conversation on the nature of consciousness, including the kind of cutting-edge research that IONS conducts. "
If we break this sentence down, it is incorrect to state that "some" in the mainstream of science EVER stifles conversation on the "nature of consciousness." It is fair to say that some do limit discussion regarding "cutting-edge research" since it has yet to provide significant results. This is a huge difference.
The interesting comment that was included was by Dean Radin of IONS, who observes, ""Based on the thousands of comments generated by TED's action, I think it is clear that the majority of TED fans were very upset with TED, and contrary to TED's complaint that these people were legions of woo-woo fans, many of the commenters explicitly said that they were quite skeptical of this line of research and that their primary concern was about TED's act of censorship, because the scientific process requires open dialog, otherwise it isn't science any more." (science haters take note).
In general IONS's portrayals of the TED's handling of the Sheldrake controversy is biased. TED has the right to edit its contain in the ways that does IONS.
Sheldrake's talk can still be found at TED. Another fact the newsletter failed to report.
http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
Sat, 04 May 2013 14:39:26 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7361186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7369 The senses, our awareness has an interface with reality, the mind by which we perceive reality about us. Our mind has the ability to sense light frequencies so we see. Our mind has the to sense sound vibrations so we hear. Our skin has the ability to sense tactile sensations so we feel. Our mind has a tongue so we taste. Everything that comes into the mind we see, feel, touch, taste, hear we call a sense. Why is not gravity and time, which come into our mind a sense also. Our sense of balance depends upon the inner ear.
Time, do we have an organ that accounts for our sensing of time and specifically the passage of time. Apparently no organ has been found to account for the feeling of the passage of time. Internal clocks are speculated or explained, but does this explain the apparent persistent presence in self awareness of the passage of time. One suggests order the other a relationship to motion, movement of time.
Awareness is a factor of time and it this we are able to see reality from two different moments, we are able to commit action and see ourselves commit that action hence self aware as two slightly out of phase moments creating a self aware perspective. This suggests a separate self awareness that exists slightly out of phase with the physical mind in time. The Id self contained time field or awareness that monitors the mind. Hence it is attached to the living being, but is separate by being slightly out of phase. This occurs because it is energy based and the mind operates at a slower clocks speed of the physical plain. In this view the id is time and acts through time and space in a training relationship to time and space. Hence we dream and sleep has a reason. The energy being needs its time out of phase with the physical world based clock speed. As an energy being he will have a relativity speed higher than our physical brains switching speeds or our sensory input speed of our body. Our reaction time is limited in our awake states sensing of the passage of time. So the energy beings different relationship to the passage of time create two different positions of an observer, we have two different clock speeds in our being. We commit an action in our mind to which we are connected by this subjective physical world and our real awareness in training of the energy being watches that action being planned in our less subjective out of time phase energy at a much higher velocity. This much higher velocity gives our energy being the ability to plan and anticipate in a reaction time much faster than our physical bodies reaction time.
This energy being in training is an energy of the universe that reality or god has borrowed and incorporated into life as self awareness, I borrow the term ID. This suggests that self awareness is real and separate from the electrical actions of the physical mind. The energy being is learning to exist separately from the physical body as we live through life...
Sun, 05 May 2013 10:39:26 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7369symbolicregressionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7370Symbolic Regression
I just joined IONS and my only credentials are my life experience. I love the passion that you are all expressing in your views. Consciousness is as awesome and as confounding as the universe and cannot be accessed through intellect alone. My experience tells me that in moments of heightened humility and empathy is when the ability to access answers about consciousness is most relevant. The end result for any science or religion should be for the well being of the human race and our amazing planet. If I am ever superior in my responses please let me know. I'm just a man trying to do my part to support goodwill and love between people.
Peace and Love
GeoffSun, 05 May 2013 10:51:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7370James Davishttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7373dustproduction: "...some do limit discussion regarding "cutting-edge research" since it has yet to provide significant results. This is a huge difference."
I think you may need to update this part of your studies, e.g.
DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
"What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi?"
http://www.parapsych.org/articles/36/55/what_is_the_stateoftheevidence.aspx
See also the "What Is a Taboo? (Part 1)" and others in the series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXTLFfcOoTg
Mon, 06 May 2013 15:13:00 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7373dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7374Here is the whole list
http://noetic.org/research/psi-research/Mon, 06 May 2013 23:10:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7374Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7375The definition of consciousness should apply to the entire animal and human kingdom. So why is there a definition if it doesn’t exist? If we recognize that the definition does apply to all the animal kingdom, including humans, then, for example, is an oyster considered conscious? Tue, 07 May 2013 05:37:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7375186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7419 I have read that NBC something has published an article of a part of the visual cortex processing visual information faster than the mind and say placing a baseball farther along its trajectory than it really is. This would be an example of dual clock speed in the mind. I have been working with the subject of precognition and time violation for many years. This new discovery by NBC something copyright is not to be confused with my dual energy clock speed speculation as a derivative of my research into the nature of the mind and self awareness and its interaction with time fields. I reserve the right to continue my writing and research. My results and research predate theirs by many years. Not a credit thing but a I have the right to write, create, and research without any interference from them. The mind has the ability to anticipate. That the mind has the ability to predict and see that prediction seems apparent to everyone. It is of the different positions of observation and time that I am concerned.Sun, 12 May 2013 11:11:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7419186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7429 I have become aware of a certain perception of the nature of spiritual events by believers. People say that these occur outside of time and space. Jung wrote this. Usually the universe will present an idea that needs addressed when it is its time for me to consider that idea and then present alternatives that seem more valid.
Because events that are paranormal seem to have a random nature and men have experiences and powers that do not seem to relate to time or gravity as we sense them in this three dimensional existence we might easily use the term" Outside Time and Space". This may not be the case.
Because events and experiences appear mysterious must it be outside of time and space. Would it not be easier to develop answers and solutions, or models of events if we assume that everything is part of the same system of time and space. In my understanding I believe this to be so. I have had many, many experiences and I cannot find reason to think that they happened magically, or outside time.
I think the spiritual dimension is of a nature related to relativity, a quantum nature, and an interaction between awareness and time.
In a dream one of the familiar laws we know" where you look or your attention is drawn there you go.
Mon, 13 May 2013 20:34:03 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7429Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7430In the introduction of my Scofield Study Bible, I read, “The saying that ‘anything may be proved by the Bible’ is both true and false—true if isolated passages are used; utterly false if the whole divine revelation is in view.” I also read: “Augustine said, ‘Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.”
The Sumerians gave us, in the zodiac, 12 ages, each lasting about 2,000 years. The Sumerians turned a sun baked desert between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers into sprawling cities with tall temples, magnificent palaces, mansions and comfortable homes lining paved streets. Their cities were surrounded by fields of golden grain and rows of date palms waving in the breeze.
I haven’t heard this offered. Before the Sumerians, there were countless years of stone-age people, wandering nomads, their existence problematical. Why the change? “And God said, Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26). Who was God talking to? We know we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. Could we be close to another great change, to become one of a galactic community? We are entering now the Age of Aquarius, whose symbol is the water-bearer. We are now in the death those of the Age of Pisces, whose symbol is two fish swimming in opposite directions. So the Sumerians told us, we are to become our brother’s keeper. And by the way, they predicted Jesus.
Tue, 14 May 2013 05:10:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7430Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_743218600c, I’ve become aware of certain spiritual events. From the obvious fact that the civilization of the ancient Sumerians was an obvious improvement of living conditions over the stone-age, expanded conscious awareness is a good thing, what was the motivation for keeping advanced thinking a secret authorities did not want the masses to know, and remains the case today? It was and is the idea that “I know what is best for you.” It is the law that might makes right, the law of the jungle, and always in play.
Ancient Sumerian priests, who predicted Jesus, actually astrologers—to this day talked down—tells you that astrologers are a threat to manmade gods.
Jesus, who talked down manmade gods, advised us to look within for our answers. The Age of Pisces, which is now in its death throes, according to astrologers, is an age when men adhere to external factors. Welcome the Age of Aquarius.
Tue, 14 May 2013 07:38:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7432186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7436 My books concentrated of subtle precognition. Subtle precognition and the future are the real reason for evolutionary effects. Which came first the thumb or the part of the mind that governs the thumb. Neither the part of the mind that sensed grasping was needed, the impulse to grasp, Precognition. Even if you allow for subtle precognition and evolutionary pressures, Short and very long terms , I am still able to believe in " I am that I am".
Survival of the fittest only apparently works, The dinosaurs, Those who died in the last ice age bottle neck. Many specialized adaptations, tooth, claw, tool and weapons. The fittest, strongest in subtle precognition live in a threatening world so they select for the greatest safety, richest, strongest, fastest, most correct, most moral. They look about real time for a threat to react to. When the real threat is from the future. There is enough flow of evidence to support this position. The black death, for several hundred years before the black death men became ungovernable and Rome collapsed. The Germans became hyper competitive before their destruction after world war two. There is anecdotal evidence that "Yellowstone" is threatening the world.
This relationship gives man a depth that cannot be seen just by looking at the processes that appear to act in the structures of the mind.Tue, 14 May 2013 20:08:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7436186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7440 Joseph Smith . I do not do astrology but I do follow cycles in nature as awareness driven events. I do not hide any truth simply have not had a real need, support, or monies and now I lack motivation to publish what I perceive is real. These are awareness driven events which violate time, and in doing so modify anything that acts in time and space. Astrology is fine, The age of Aquarius and the minds true liberation is a hope full thing. Men understanding himself should lead to a true liberation this would be the long true road and the deep ground of liberation which would feed back to the present a change of heart, potentially. I almost deliberately do not address anyone's beliefs, by name. I would not tell anyone that they are wrong. For them they well might be right.
Sometimes I can be so dense I think you are trying to support my efforts,
I have been made aware of another mental puzzle in the way men see reality.
As an observer I can learn to see reality from many points and that each different point in reality and velocity and time will show this observer a different reality, Light will travel differently, time will pass more slowly, If a train whistles past the pitch of its whistle will lower as it passes. I can use what I am shown to understand reality
I guess this is called relativity.
As a remote observer I can learn to see reality from many different points and that each different point in reality and velocity and time will show this remote observer a different reality, light may reflect off objects I become aware of, I can see things from different times which seem to be valid, If a train whistles past the pitch of its whistle will not affect the people I see in the train cars in their period clothing who smile back and wave warmly. I can use what I am show to understand reality.
The perspective of observers in relativity and remote viewing do not seem that far apart. Wed, 15 May 2013 19:49:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7440Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_744118600C, with reference to observers, I am a disabled WWII veteran. Thanks to the generosity of the American people, I have no financial worries. I volunteered to fight for our freedom. So first let me say we don’t have I right to government entitlement. The objective world is flawed. We are more than matter.
I’ve written and self-published my life story, “In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012: an Explanation for the underlying Mechanism of Creation.” Buy my book and I have no right to your help. I will not be disabled. It will not end costing you anything to have the benefit of an 87 year life that ended in success, rather than a dependent on government, a success you helped make.
Edgar Mitchell, founder of Noetic Sciences, changed after viewing our blue water planet from afar in the back eternity of space. I changed after spending much time on the South Atlantic Ocean on my sloop, “Bold Venture.” What a difference! From the asphalt jungle to nothing but me and God. Life originally emerged from the ocean. My new life emerged from the sea.
Jesus said, in Luke 21, that there would be signs in the sun, moon and stars, and there would be distress among the nations. He said the kingdom of God is in you, and that when the things we now experience happen that our redemption would be near.
Time is a repeating cycle. My time has come and will soon end. Before I go I want to leave something of value. This is a time to be flexible and open to change. Government entitlement leaves America’s future with a great debt burden. Phase out government entitlement. Government entitlement is giving up your freedom; making yourself a government slave.
Thu, 16 May 2013 06:52:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7441Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7442By the way 18600c, with reference to "subtle precognition," astrology says with my Saturn, the learning planet, in favorable alignment with Pluto, the generational planet, meaning that I would be naturally cognizant of the "subtle" workings of the universe; and in that I'm "Aquarius rising," this means that I would "march to the beat of a different drummer;" and that I could be "a forerunner in setting style, discover new methods, and showing the rest of humanity the way; indeed, I "may be the person to bring back information that has lost to civilization for centuries," astrology tells me, all I can say is that this skeptic seems to have found his path of destiny.
One can wonder where the ancients got all this stuff. The ancient sages of India said, so is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. The cutting edge of science says there is a dimension of infinite possibility. They got this idea from having taken apart the universe and studied its microcosmic parts. It does seem to me that we have no idea of what the universe really is. Thu, 16 May 2013 07:41:17 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7442dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7443Are we still discussing science and consciousness here????Thu, 16 May 2013 15:25:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7443Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7444The cutting edge of science maintains that without consciousness nothing could exist. In "Alien Contact," we read that our "authorities" asked an extraterrestrial if he was religious. His answer, yes, he believed the universe is the Supreme Being. What, other than a Supreme Consciousness?
In Genesis 1:26, we read, "And God said, Let us make man in our image." Who is us? Surely, it was not a man, as man had not yet arrived on earth. Vastly more aware than any other life form on the planet, we are of extraterrestrial origin, at least qualitatively.
The truth will set you free. Jesus, who was predicted by Persian astrologers, walked into Jerusalem and into the temple, the headquarters of Jewish law, and proceeded to call the makers and keepers of Jewish law hypocrites. He turned over the money changers' tables, the source of the makers and keepers of laws' great wealth and power. What comes around goes around. Are we conscious of what's going on, or are we duped? We are fast learning that our makers and keepers of that law, who are robbing Peter to pay Paul, are spinning the truth. They claim ignorance of the fact that we are being taken to the cleaners.
In Luke 21, Jesus spoke of the sun, moon, and stars bringing us signs. He spoke of distress among the nations. He said when you see the things we see today, to look for the kingdom of God. He said to lift up your heads. When we look up, what do we see? We see a huge increase in the number of UFOs. What do the "authorities" tell you? It is all your imagination. Are you conscious, or is your head buried in the sand?Fri, 17 May 2013 04:45:56 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7444Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7445Specifically, the network mikewarren refers to is our receiver. The "cognitive functioning," you need to know, qualitative, does not apply to the quantitative, our receiver. It applies to the source. The questions science must answer go to the psyche and the cosmos connection.
In answer to the questions, distinguished philosopher and cultural historian Richard Tarnas demonstrates the existence of an astonishingly consistent correspondence between planetary alignments and archetypal patterns of human history. Interestingly, Saturn went into its worst alignment with Pluto in November 2008, the month and year President Obama was elected. Tarnas says this particular alignment always finds widespread indulgence, decadence, naiveté, denial, and inflation.
Science is into quantifying the tiniest excitations. They thought they had found the indivisible particle, the Higgs boson, only to discover that it is divisible. The search is futile. It's like trying to find the end of infinity. There is no "God particle." We exist in a state of consciousness, inextricably connected with the source of all that is. To know this, we must be willing to receive.
The greatest mind of all, Einstein, envisioned a unified field. He could not accept a personal God, yet he envisioned the orderliness of the universe. In his effort to understand matter, to unify all into a single conception, which would simplify the laws of nature, his limitation stopped him. Science has since found that Einstein's objective universe was flawed. It takes observation to bring about our reality. It follows that God must be a personal God. So where do you look for God?Fri, 17 May 2013 06:22:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7445Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7446Edgar Mitchell, while above it all, with a God's eye view of our planet, was inspired to build a foundation for scientific truth and justice. I took a different route. Confined to earth, my life had fallen into ruins, I blamed government. I studied the Constitution with the thought of taking legal action against the brutal IRS. That was in 1975. In 2013, the brutal IRS is on the carpet. This is not the first time. Let's make it the last time.
When I studied the Constitution, I heard voices of the past speaking to me. They empowered me. The IRS hung itself with its own rope. Had you been there when I attacked the powerful IRS, would you not have thought I'd lost my mind? Not only did I beat the IRS at its own corrupt game, but I've been rewarded with a life that is as good as life gets. It comes under the heading of conscious awareness. You can't sit in the bleachers and pontificate, folks.
Fallensoul says the problem is the dogmatic idea that only modern science, which accepts its reality on the empiric laws of physics and chemistry.This "limited view will not provide any significant answers to the problem of consciousness, no matter how hard you try to research." Exactly! You've got to get on the playing field.
Fri, 17 May 2013 07:53:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7446186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7448 Men pretend to have hidden knowledge but nothing is hidden. Their power is only to pretend. I have long been a student of humanity. I have seen into all their enchantments. If they had hidden knowledge that really made their life better they would not need to hide it. They hide information because it gives them some power. In this power begets knowledge. If their god wants me to know a thing why do they not tell him to tell or change me. I have my relationship to the universe and I would not trade it for anyone. The discussion was of the nature of consciousness.
Sumerians all dead aren't they? Fri, 17 May 2013 22:10:24 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7448Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7449Samarians may be dead but not their voices. “All the world’s a stage, and life a play,” from Shakespeare’s “As You Like It,” Jaques catalogues seven stages of a man’s life. More realistically, ancient numerologists gave us nine steps of life, one being justice.
In a book I wrote and self-published, “In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012,” I catalogue the nine steps in my reinvented life, which began with the first step, the pioneer seeking to find his identity. My current life began in the spring of 1975 when I cut from the herd and went on my own. Jesus, one of those voices of the past, incidentally, predicted by the Samarians, I left my old life on the day Christians commemorate as the day Christ was crucified, arriving in Miami, Florida on Easter Sunday for the first day of my new life. It meant nothing to me. I’m not a Christian.
Numerology’s fourth step, justice, played a big role in my life. I beat the IRS at its own game—“foolish mistakes”—the former head of the IRS now admits. Miller is out, and I’m in. All my dreams have come true. “Voices of the past” led me. My guess is that Jesus is everyone’s savior.
By the way, power is numerology’s eighth step, followed by nine, selflessness, the desire to be of universal service. Those with a phony sense of power, history records, end in an ash heap. Somehow those voices of the past are always right, so don’t knock them.
Sat, 18 May 2013 02:02:44 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7449Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7450This discussion reminds me of a discussion group I was in two decades back sponsored by The New York Times. I was the only layman. Par for the course, I have a penchant for perching on the limb with the top birds of the flock. All the lawyers in the DOJ could not beat me. I know natural law. In battling physicists, who could not see the forest for the trees, I got into quantum physics, a natural with me. Most quantum physicists know what matter does but can't tell you what it is. How I know these things, I can't tell you, but matter begins with consciousness--psychic energy. From a field of pure energy came matter. We interact with matter, to individually create our reality. It helps to know this. Sat, 18 May 2013 02:59:20 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7450Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7451Hey Mike! You are right about this. It was Sumerians, not Samarians. I don't know what a Samarian is but the spelling seems to be correct. At age 87, I have a problem with names and places.Sat, 18 May 2013 03:14:01 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7451186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7504 Joseph
I can show you the Sumerian Mountain of God, the mate the great Sphinx, Where Medusa guards the entrance to the underworld with modern men frozen in stone. I can show you a figure 1600 feet tall. Can show you photos of ancient men in stone. Show you where the earth was mined in ancient time for resources. Entire mountains show signs of ancient activity of mining. Where the Garden of Eden was as man was made from the earth. The Sumerians can speak for themselves, and do. Can show you that ancient man was in America many, many thousands of years ago. A figure following an object across the sky. There seems no end of the wonders the ancients left. But that is still off subject of awareness and its nature.
The universe will tell you truth which you can follow for yourself, others are often in a different place following their voices from the universe, where the awareness is led. Some trips are very ordered others such as mine follow into what ever curious things are presented, and from this I learn. Leading others is a difficult thing! You must get between them and the voice of the universe that directs man's awareness, to some this Might be their God, others perceive this differently such as nature, others still with the lenses of science. I think all are of the same voice but with the limiting rules set by men. But I do know that to get between men and god is a sin and wrong. So to inform might be better than to lead.
Men find comfort in their inner reality and are slow to change their inner compass. I hope that you have valid things that we would like to hear about. I would like to hear from great voices the world needs more... Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7504dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7530Re: Time
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Essence-of-Time-Robin-LePoidevin-/2386
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-Time-David-Albert-/2193
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-Time-Julian-Barbour-/2195Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:35:14 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7530Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7566In response to 186000c, I'm an observer. As such, I have a problem with "great voices." They have led us down many a garden path--turned self-awareness into slavery. I look forward to yours and likeminded comments on so-called "great voices" the world has endured. I think Jesus was a "great voice." He was crucified. By the way, Jesus was predicted by Persian astrologers. Jesus said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Was Caesar a "great voice?" His colleagues didn't think so. Name me your idea of a "great voice." Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:45:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7566186000chttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7578 Your Jesus was a scholar, why did it take three hundred years for hear say books to be assembled. None are his direct voice. Why did he not write down his meaning and intent. Then there would be no question his nature and meaning. As God's son would he not know that a book of his life would be assembled and have taken pains to make sure his part was not misunderstood and was written to a point of clarity. He argued in the Assembly with great affect, was to be about his fathers work, as a scholar why were these events not written down.
Great voices or ignoble voices driven by ego I could name one. There is no profit in communication with you. I hope you end up leading many as a politician you might find that your own voice and ego are lost in the din. I should not wish to lead any. I have thought about publishing my books but I should loose my connection with the universe in the din and you are only part of that din. Good byFri, 07 Jun 2013 18:31:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7578dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7590 Let's stick to the question here, its about science and consciousness, not the bible.
See the full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-scienceSat, 08 Jun 2013 19:40:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7590dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7617Subjective and objective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_OPQgPIdKg
John Searle one of the world's great philosophers of mind and language, has spent fifty years stimulating thinking around the world. What he says about consciousness as a biological phenomenon will challenge you! Cogitation, Consciousness & The Brain.Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:29:40 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7617bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7618I looked at the vid and article. Searl described all the splits in the two approaches between spiritual people and the scientific approach. One's saying it's all about the soul, the other its all about the body brain. He basically said the latest reearch shows that consciousness comes out of biology. I assume he means that it is not primary? In other words the persons consciousness dies when their body dies?
I don't see any real split in that the hemishperes are equal in size which means that logic is as important as intuition and all the equivalences that follow. Like objectivity being as important as subjectivity, overt being as important as subtle, the visible being as important as the invisible etc. To call the subjective appraoch 'touchy feely' is like cutting yourself in half or getting a knife and severing the corpus collosum that joins the hemispheres. How can you understand intuition if you haven't developed any? For example how could a computer ever understand what metaphor is?Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:55:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7618Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7619Without consciousness, nothing would exist. In the Bible, under Genesis 1:26, we read, "And God said, Let us make man in our image," before man arrived. I assume "us" is a universal archetype.
Maybe Fallensoul would like to tell us what this means. "Mr. Smith (me), I think it's time that you start your own blog."
With this in mind, Astrology tells me, "You have a great sense of contributing to the betterment of humankind. Overreaction to the restrictions in your prior life could make you appear too avant-garde or rebellious to the outside world. In a prior life, you may have exercised your freedom without concern for the feelings or welfare of others. Outwardly you may look very conventional. Inwardly, you are unconventional. Your ideas are often so far into the future that others find you difficult to understand."
We are entering a new world order, according to astrology, when we become our brother’s keeper. We’ve been brainwashed to think military might is what keeps us safe. This is wrong. Your security comes from within. It you want me to go away, tell me. I’ll be on my way.
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:22:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7619Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7621On April 11, 1943, when I was seventeen, and had been disobedient, my father wrote me a letter I’ve kept and occasionally reread. In the letter, he wrote, “When we have everything given to us, we are apt to take these things for granted….Everyone should keep uppermost in his mind that he comes into this life with nothing….None of this could ever have been accomplished, with all the hardships, without one thing being observed, and that is obedience….God gives us this lesson of obedience in the very beginning of this world. Adam came with absolutely nothing, and God gave him the Garden of Eden, gave him everything a man needed, if he would do but one thing, and that was to obey. This is what he was taught, and countless generations before my father.
Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, because they disobeyed. In Genesis 3:22-23, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." My father told me only half of the truth. What does the full truth say about dependence on others? We should read the Bible in its overall context. We would look within for our answers. Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:56:21 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7621Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7622All of these things connect. Everything happens for a reason. I couldn’t be what my father wanted me to be. I was way ahead of his time. In my early life I rebelled and ended with my life in ruins. I cut from the herd, went on my own, to discover who I really was, and all my dreams have come true.
I’m so far into the future, says astrology, that others find me difficult to understand. Astrology says that we are leaving a time when we have looked externally for answers—entering an age when we become more spiritual. Jesus said, “Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man” (Luke 21:36).
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:23:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7622bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7631Joseph, you're right about 'might' being the old way, the old type of bravery that had men armour themselves and run on a battlefield for causes they didn't really understand. This old version of bravery is rapidly becoming a form of stupidity. The new courage is vulnerablility and living without armour. This is true bravery by my standards.
The problem with wearing armour is that there is no shortage of people who want to find chinks in it. But what if you don't wear any?
How can chinks be found in armour that you don't wear?Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:53:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7631dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7632
The bible has nothing to do with this discussion, so park it please)
Re:I don't see any real split in that the hemishperes are equal in size
What happens to consciousness when the corpus callosum is split, like in the procedures they perform to stop seizure?
This is the problem with trying to have a discussion about consciousness. People want to put down scientific investigation of the brain but do not undertand the parts of the brain that create mind and self.
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:00:53 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7632charliethttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7633One of the biggest problems I see with this discussion is how each person defines consciousness, there seems to be a lot of confusion about this. To me, part of the definition is the knowing of things beyond my logical capability, my awareness of things that I really have no reason to be aware of. It is the spirit or soul of me. Consciousness does not need the brain or mind to exist, it exists regardless. The brain or mind are only a receiver of what the conscious is giving to me, the "I".
Another problem is the word itself, consciousness has many other meanings depending on how it is used.
The original question seems to be more interested in the physical terminology of the word, whereas the discussion is leaning toward the mental awareness associated with the word.
How do you define your view of consciousness?Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:20:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7633dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7655
Let us look again at the question that are being asked, the ones in the article, that science must answer?
1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?
Obviously, the brain is evolved in our conscious processes.
What is the purpose of the material brain if it does not produce mind, a self, and consciousness. We know that it creates agency in other life form due to our subjective nature.
Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:14:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7655Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7662Obviously, dustproduction, you don't know consciousness. It isn't in a place. It's in a state--qualitative. Other life forms do as nature orders. We humans are co-creators in the foundry of creation. With humans, there is no such thing as objective reality. We are each subjective. It's a matter of personal choice as to how much we relate with others. We cannot be taught to be something we are not. Animals can be taught to jump through hoops for a reward. You need to know that. Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:41:40 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7662Joseph Smithhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7663Science has the basic answer, but from time immemorial the individual has been an a battle with earth-bound authority for control. In Bell's theorem, it has been irrevocably proven that once two photons connect, always instantly connected, even if separated by the distance of the universe. The speed of light is not involved. There is the qualitative state and the quantitative place. You can't put a state in a place.
Consciousness, being a state, and not in a place, you can't put consciousness in a brain, the brain communicates with consciousness through nonlocal energy. Local energy is like gravity and electromagnetism. The state of consciousness must be expanded to match high tech, lest we annihilate ourselves. Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:29:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7663dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7668 RE: "the brain communicates with consciousness through nonlocal energy".
And how exactly does the brain do this? Please provide a reference for "non-local energy."
Also, provide some direct comments about the site the question referes to. It doesn't sound like you have read it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-science
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:11:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7668dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7670
I subscribe to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
The brain produces mind and a sense of self.
Consciousness has evolved in other animals into the current state we find it in humans.
The brain-body-mind-self can be described as a complex adaptive system Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:15:26 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7670dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7692The more that I read about the brain and consciousness the more I have come to think along the lines that consciousness is, as Ned Block has put it, a "mongrel concept."
The roots of consciousness are found in philosophy and religious thinking where the spirit inhabits the body. This is not be what we are observing in the brain and since we do observe activity that correlates with our conscious abilities they need to be explained . Science has only studied consciousness for some twenty years or so. In another twenty we may find that the brain produces a "network of networks", where there emerges several aspects of what we currently label as consciousness. This functional structures exist elsewhere in nature and there is evidence that they exist in the brain as well. See Olaf Sporns, "Networks of the Brain".
Ned Block explains: http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-s-the-Essence-of-Consciousness-Ned-Block-/1450Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:14:07 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7692dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7750
Re: The assumption that mind and memory are stored in the brain is a false premise.
Well here is evidence in the form of research, physical evidence. There is NO evidence however that "The brain is more like a television set that receives messages from the memory and mind." This is purely BELIEF talking here, it how you want things to be.
"Smith and Squire therefore designed their experiments so that they could assess the effects of the age of a memory independently of both the encoding of the test questions and richness of the recollection of the memory. At the beginning of the task, the researchers presented in random order blocks of questions about events in each time period, and they asked participants to indicate whether or not they knew the answer. About 10 minutes later, while still in the scanner, the participants were asked three questions about each news event. First, they were asked to recall the original question they had been asked about the event (to assess how well they had encoded the information). Then, they were asked the answer to that question (to assess the accuracy of recall) and, finally, how much they knew about each of the events (to assess the richness of each memory)."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-memory-trace
"Why, then, might old memories be transferred from the hippocampus to the frontal cortex? It may be because retrieving older memories requires stronger associations and increased effort—memory encoding in the frontal cortex is more complex than in the hippocampus, and involves a widely distributed network with a greater number of connections. The frontal cortex may therefore be better suited to the task of retrieving memories that were encoded in the distant past."
Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:37:12 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7750dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7751 Re: is an oyster considered conscious?
Anyone who has studied consciousness from an academic point of view, understands that brains have evolved.
In order for brains to have mind, and for consciousness to emerge, animals need the necessary brain components.
The reason this is a reasonable position to take is that we know that damage to certain parts of the brain create a lose of function. This can and has been measured.
Even the brain as a TV like receivers of a non local signal has to have a physical explanation. Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:46:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7751dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7752Q: Where is memory stored?
A: Bits and pieces of a single memory are stored in different networks of neurons throughout the brain. The formation and recall of a memory is influenced by mood, surroundings, and the circumstances at the time a memory was formed or retrieved. A memory may be a little different each time we remember it.
Scientists have noted that we add interpretation during the transfer of information between working memory and long-term memory. This means we can be certain that we can't be really certain about our memory.
This begs the question, If memory is non-local, wouldn't it remain a constant? Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:52:12 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7752Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7762
@ dustproduction
"A: Bits and pieces of a single memory are stored in different networks of neurons throughout the brain. The formation and recall of a memory is influenced by mood, surroundings, and the circumstances at the time a memory was formed or retrieved. A memory may be a little different each time we remember it."
Please give scientific research that verifies this statement.Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:16:57 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7762Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7763@dustproduction
An oyster does not have a brain however it somehow remembers to close its shell if attack. How could it function without a brain unless a brain was not needed to retrieve memory. Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:20:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7763dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7767 Your assuming oysters have memories. Do they?
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/classics/galtsoff1964/chap13.pdfFri, 12 Jul 2013 19:58:21 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7767dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7768Let's not ignore my question: If memory is non-local, wouldn't it remain a constant?
I don't see that there is a constant model or framework that can be used to answer questions such as this. Basically, this is a belief system that replaces religion, in terms of a continuation of after an earthly death. Speculations about such a replacement system remains tie to a spirit or soul, which is misunderstood to be consciousness, or the Self.
Re: memory
Which type of memory are we discussion?
"This model of memory as a sequence of three stages, from sensory to short-term to long-term memory, rather than as a unitary process, is known as the modal or multi-store or Atkinson-Shiffrin model, after Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffrin who developed it in 1968, and it remains the most popular model for studying memory. It is often also described as the process of memory, but I have used this description for the processes of encoding, consolidation, storage and recall in the separate Memory Processes section.
http://www.human-memory.net/types.html
In brains the cannot form new long term memories, such as individuals with Korsakoff's syndrome it has been found that new procedural memory can still be formed.
"Brain areas involved in the neuroanatomy of memory such as the hippocampus, the amygdala, the striatum, or the mammillary bodies are thought to be involved in specific types of memory. For example, the hippocampus is believed to be involved in spatial learning and declarative learning, while the amygdala is thought to be involved in emotional memory. Damage to certain areas in patients and animal models and subsequent memory deficits is a primary source of information. However, rather than implicating a specific area, it could be that damage to adjacent areas, or to a pathway traveling through the area is actually responsible for the observed deficit. Further, it is not sufficient to describe memory, and its counterpart, learning, as solely dependent on specific brain regions. Learning and memory are attributed to changes in neuronal synapses, thought to be mediated by long-term potentiation and long-term depression.
In general, the more emotionally charged an event or experience is, the better it is remembered; this phenomenon is known as the memory enhancement effect. Patients with amygdala damage, however, do not show a memory enhancement effect."
Where are we going with these question. Obviously science has researched many many of these issues. Science has evidence on which to base their concepts and the search continues in the effort to uncover more answers.
This "radio receiver" notion is speculative, and incomplete at best. Where is that framework?
Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:26:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7768Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7770The memory of an oyster is obvious or else it would have become extinc long ago. If the closing of its shell is said to be only a reflex action to outside stimuli then it could certainly be caused because it knows that not closing could be death and so it must have some sort of memory in ordrer to have this reflex.
The overwhelming evidence of life after death (http://www.lifebeyonddeath.net/curriculum-vitae-0, http://www.nderf.org/index.htm, http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page5.htm#Factors ) indicates that memory is a constant and because the brain with the rest of the body has no spirit to direct its action, (death) can not be the source of memory. The so called past life experiences could simply be a tapping into the collective memory of others particularly family members in light of the fact that we are all non local and connected or as Russell Means use to say "We are all related"Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:15:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7770dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7773Re: The overwhelming evidence of life after death.
Looking.....where is the evidence, overwhelming or otherwise? This is a SUBJECTIVE account of a questionable event.
But, let's stick to the threads question. Alexander is being discussed on "What is Heaven?"
Re: indicates that memory is a constant
Indicates it how? This is unsupported and there isn't even the "indication" that his book was read.
Let's get back to science since even IONS uses it to substantiate their claims.
Additionally, the topic of memory has been separated into various forms, and there is no explanation doing offered as to how the Radio receiver model handles each or any. Where and what is the physical components? Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:11:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7773Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7776http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/drowning030203.htm
@ dustproduction
Perhaps you should get out and get some fresh air because you are just a little confused, the thread here is consciousness not "What is heaven".Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:41:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7776dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7778
(Again, with the personal put downs, how childish)
Re: Oysters
"As far as the mind and consciousness are concerned, evolution has brought us different sorts of brains. There is the sort of brains that produce behaviors but does not appear to have a mind or consciousness; an example is the nervous system of Aplysia californica, the marine snail that became popular in the laboratory of the neurobiologist Eric Kandel
It turns out that living creatures without any brain at all, down to single cells, exhibit seemingly intelligent and purposeful behaviors as well. And that too is an under appreciated fact. from "Self Come to Mind," Antonio Damasio
Sat, 13 Jul 2013 17:26:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7778Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7782Not a "personal putdown". Only an observation and a suggestion for your good health along with Bach Flower remedy Wild Rose taken in a glass of water four times a day for thirty days. You will feel better before the thirty days are up however continue taking it for the full effect and help.
Your post is intelligent in confirming the fact that all earthly thinks are conscious. I don't know the Back remedies by the description given I only dowse for what is needed. Maybe it's better for you to ignor the description for the remedy.
I hope you feel better soonSun, 14 Jul 2013 10:04:12 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7782dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7783It occurred to me today that while many dismiss the "conventional" view of consciousness that science has offered, that mind and consciousness emerges from the brain, it has yet to be demonstrated that those who do know all that much about the brain, or how it is that this and from which brain components this emergence occurs. While it is simple enough to drop the word "brain" into the conversation, the brain is composed of many parts. What parts of the brain are we discussing precisely?
Am I wrong about this? Please feel free to explain a little about the significance of the cerebral cortex, or the insular cortices in the emergence of consciousness in the "conventional" scientific understanding.
Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:21:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7783Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7789This article wil be of interest to you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317371/#!po=69.7368
He speculates as to the reason Freud abandon his research on the brain function. I feel all research addressed here may be of help in limited cases. For now finding the source of memory is not a priority and current line of research is not headed in the direction to find it. Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:42:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7789dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7791The link was some what interesting but it lead me to one far more interesting. We need a self to have a mind.
The trans-species core SELF: the emergence of active cultural and neuro-ecological agents through self-related processing within subcortical-cortical midline networks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18485741/Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:43:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7791dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7800http://academia.edu/1610087/Evolution_of_consciousness
For those with the time. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:25:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7800Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7806http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns5sLo59Kak&feature=related
Nice video if you have the time. Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:47:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7806dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7810If belief manipulate genes and DNA were or when on this Earth did such a system of beliefs produce a different, more enlightened society?
Actually it sounds a great deal like epigenetics. Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:24:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7810dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7811 "Epigenesis is the concept that covers all those lasting changes in gene expression proﬁles that are controlled by environmental inputs (e.g., via methylation of chromatin surrounding genes that control gene expression levels, as well as other distinct chemical processes such as ‘‘sexual imprinting” of genes) rather than the expression of the intrinsic information in gene nucleotide sequences. The key to higher human psychic development, including the emergence of various idiographic selves, may reside in the manner in which certain foundational evolutionarily provided tools for living (e.g., proto-SELF and core-SELF networks), along with epigenetic programming of higher brain regions by real-world experiences, engender developmental landscapes that permit society, culture and the world in general,to mold higher brain organization, including our language abilities, much more so than the information encoded in genes."
From the research paper The trans-species core SELF: The emergence of active cultural
and neuro-ecological agents through self-related processing within subcortical-cortical midline networks. by Jaak Pankseppa,*, Georg Northoff Fri, 19 Jul 2013 06:25:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7811dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7817In this TEDTalk Antonio Damasio discusses a part of the brain that he proposes contribute to the emergence of consciousness.
He say, "There is the brain stem in between the cerebral cortex and the spinal cord. And it is within that region that I'm going to highlight now that we have this housing of all the life-regulation devices of the body. This is so specific that, for example, if you look at the part that is covered in red in the upper part of the brain stem, if you damage that as a result of a stroke, for example, what you get is coma or vegetative state, which is a state, of course, in which your mind disappears, your consciousness disappears. What happens then actually is that you lose the grounding of the self, you have no longer access to any feeling of your own existence, and, in fact, there can be images going on, being formed in the cerebral cortex, except you don't know they're there. You have, in effect, lost consciousness when you have damage to that red section of the brain stem.
But if you consider the green part of the brain stem, nothing like that happens. It is that specific. So in that green component of the brain stem, if you damage it, and often it happens, what you get is complete paralysis, but your conscious mind is maintained. You feel, you know, you have a fully conscious mind that you can report very indirectly. This is a horrific condition. You don't want to see it. And people are, in fact, imprisoned within their own bodies, but they do have a mind. "
The red brain part that he is referring to is the "Tectum."
see the illustration here @ 11:46 http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio_the_quest_to_understand_consciousness.html
Now the reason for bringing this up is that any other alternative explanation for consciousness would be to include an explanation of this brain component since without in we lose our consciousness.Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:23:29 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7817Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7822Yes and if you take the hard drive out or damage it a computer it loses its Consciousness as well.Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:41:03 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7822dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7824re: take the hard drive
But a computer isn't a brain and it isn't conscious. Brains are conscious and they are composed of physical components that play a role in its emergence.
The burden of explaining the functioning of physical components in the brain falls on those with alternative consciousness models. Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:30:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7824Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7836"The burden of explaining the functioning of physical components in the brain falls on those with alternative consciousness models."
This is the first time I have read such a statement. Where did you get this idea?Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:44:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7836dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7838re: Where did you get this idea?
I have been repeating this over and over again on these threads in one form or another.
Any theory that attempts to explain consciousness as something other than it being an emergent property of the brain needs to incorporate how the brain components, such as the tectum, the periaqueductal gray, and the superior colliculus.
Science has established these areas of the brain as playing a role in consciousness, since damage to these region result in the lose of consciousness.
So for example in NDE, such as Eber Alexander writes about, there needs to be an explanation as to how a memory of the event is formed and retained in the brain if the brain was in a coma, and as Alexander claims, not functioning in a manner that would provide for what he experienced. There are different types of memory, and long term memory is not stored in the brain as a complete file, but rather deconstructed into bits of information, and made available for reconstruction during recall.
NDE not to provide and theory of how the event is recalled by the brain. This is equally true for reincarnation, OBE, and so forth.
Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:55:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7838RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7854The first step would be to define which "consciousness" one is referring to.
Simply having one's eyes open and being up and functioning on some basic level of everyday life is not the same as, say, what goes on/goes on at the pinnacle of Universal Enlightenment, where all physicality (by conventional processing) disappears, even/even mind!
When one traverses multiple dimensions of relative timeXspace, it's a whoooole 'nother ball game! :)Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:12:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7854NewtTrinohttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7856When one traverses multiple dimensions of relative timeXspace, it's a whoooole 'nother ball game! :)
You are so full of shit...That is not opinion or theory btw...Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:36:05 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7856dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7863Re: The first step would be to define which "consciousness" one is referring to.
Correction, the first step is to read the question posed for discussion and examine the link.
See the full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-scienceTue, 30 Jul 2013 17:34:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7863Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7886"Researchers have now discovered that many cognitive functions can take place in the absence of consciousness. We can perceive objects, make decisions, and even perform apparently voluntary actions without consciousness intervening."
This sounds like the sub conscience which has a limitless memory and performs millions of functions at one time all the time we are alive. The question is what "cognitive functions" can be made unconsciously other than those functions made by the sub conscience? Cognitive functions are consciousness. And absence of consciousness is non cognitive at least according to Jungiang.
All science has found out in their brain research is the areas that emits chemical commands to the body. They have not found out and at present it looks as if they aren't wanting to find out what causes thoses commands. Consciousness or sud consciousness can not be a chemical process alone something must be the creator of thought and sub conscious functions. Creativity and even this type of discussion is not a chemical function by its self. Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:51:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7886dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7887
John Searle made the following comment during his TEDxCERN talk: "...when people do get interested in (consciousness), as I think they should, they tend to say the most appalling things."
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_searle_our_shared_condition_consciousness.html?c=725745
No links are provide along with you comments so it is difficult at best to determine what you are referring to.
I would strongly suggest that people look at a copy of "Self Comes To Mind" to at least make an attempt to understand the science that they question and condemn
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:19:44 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7887RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7890As I suggested, the first step is to clearly define which "consciousness" is being considered!
I read the article, and links within it, and it admits:
"...there is plenty more we can know that we haven't yet conceived of. The grand challenge of consciousness rests on this hope."
The more one knows how to 'ask the right questions,' the more one 'gets the right answers!'
Because of my superConsciousness, I can see that what is being addressed in these articles is the equivalent of convention trying to find Consciousness (as in Enlightenment) within the rules and regulations of conventional reasoning, when the LEVEL of Consciousness relative to Enlightenment goes far beyond anything convention and its rules of reasoning can process.
There are so many things being left out of the questioning and curiosities in the articles, as they explore basic consciousness, so many answers not being considered, that require higher Consciousness/Enlightenment (higher Universal physics processes) to even know TO consider them!
There are Universal Answers way beyond what the articles anticipate, in other words, an enormity of higher, far more complex processes than mere brain parts can be attributed to. Look what they did to poor Einstein's brain! All they found was an increase in glial cells! His work came from higher Consciousness, realizable by folks who can hear that in his works.
So, I stand by my original statement...Which Consciousness?!
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:26:53 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7890dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7892The second step is to read the posted comments so that we are not spending time reinventing the wheel.
After that, there are these question being discussed on this thread. There are other threads open for discussion regarding consciousness.
Feel free to comment here regarding science and brain parts or you can start a "superConsciousness" that discusses what you want to discuss.
Here are the eight key questions that neuroscientists are now addressing:
1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?
2. What are the mechanisms of general anaesthesia?
3. What is the self?
4. What determines experiences of volition and 'will'?
5. What is the function of consciousness? What are experiences for?
6. How rich is consciousness?
7. Are other animals conscious?
8. Are vegetative patients conscious?
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:33:12 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7892Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7895"Here are the eight key questions that neuroscientists are now addressing"
Where and who is addressing these questions?Sat, 03 Aug 2013 01:58:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7895RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7899They are just simply copied out of the article, and are precisely what I have been addressing, which obviously isn't being recognized.Sat, 03 Aug 2013 09:19:44 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7899NewtTrinohttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7902Perhaps we can only ever hypothesize about the true nature of consciousness. I like to think of it as a fabric tied to the time-space continuum. We are able to plug in or access the layers or dimensions based on our abilities to become enlightened. Perhaps animals derive their instinctual behavior from this grid. We and our influence are able to travel limitlessly with our imagination and dreams throughout this fabric. Time and space become more and more accessible as we are open to the avenues we can take. Moreover our presence and our spirit can live on inasmuch as our message is carried on by others e.g., Buddha or Jesus etc... Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:48:56 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7902dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7903Let's start with the first question.
1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?
Science posits that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The Greek physician Hippocrates rejected the idea that the gods and the spirits caused physical and mental illness. He gave a purely materialist account of the body and the mind.
Most people know very little about the brain and its parts so it is easy to understand why they choice to believe that there is a spiritual driver to a self.
The brains parts include: Cerebral Cortex, Thalamus, Midbrain, Reticular activing system, Pons, Cerebellum Spinal cord, Medulla, Pituitary gland Hypothalamus, and Corpus Callosum. There are also 100 billion neurons and even more glia cells. Neurons or nerve cells are what is normally referred to as brain cells, and they come in several types. All have a cell body, an axon and lots of branching fibers called dendrites.
How is it that science might determine which parts are involved in consciousness?
Sat, 03 Aug 2013 16:40:29 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7903NewtTrinohttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7910Maybe consciousness is no more than the existence of distinguishable physical objects in the universe that emit waves of energy such as light, sound, taste, smell, temperature, texture and intent. Our senses are the hardware that detect these signals. Our brain evolves as more of the connections are made in to what comprises the identity of all the other properties and events that we can observe. Our evolution has proven this to be true -- yes?Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:53:20 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7910dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7920Spindle neurons, what do we know about them? They are found in the brains of the humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales, sperm whales, bottlenose dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, beluga whales, and the African and Asian elephants, as well as huminids.
It would appear that they somehow play a role in consciousness,
"Spindle neurons, also called von Economo neurons (VENs), are a specific class of neurons that are characterized by a large spindle-shaped soma, gradually tapering into a single apical axon in one direction, with only a single dendrite facing opposite."
"At a Society for Neuroscience meeting in 2003, Allman reported on spindle cells his team found in another brain region, the fronto-insular cortex, a region which appears to have undergone significant evolutionary adaptations in mankind – perhaps as recently as 100,000 years ago.
This fronto-insular cortex is closely connected to the insula, a region that is roughly the size of a thumb in each hemisphere of the human brain. The insula and fronto-insular cortex are part of the orbitofrontal cortex, wherein the elaborate circuitry associated with spatial awareness and the sense of touch are found, and where self awareness and the complexities of emotion are thought to be generated and experienced. Moreover, this region of the right hemisphere is crucial to navigation and perception of three dimensional rotations."Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:38:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7920dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7922The central nervous system is organized into two principle parts, the spinal cord and the brain. The spinal cord serves as a conduction path to and from the brain and also as an organ for effecting reflex action. The brain seems to play an important role in all the complex activities constituting consciousness -- thinking, perception, learning, memory, etc. The three main structures of the brain are known as the hindbrain, the midbrain, and the forebrain.
Within the hindbrain lie the cerebellum, the pons, and medulla. These neural centers regulate breathing, heartbeat, motor coordination, posture, and balance. They are also involved in mediating nerve impulses from the body to the higher brain centers.
The midbrain contains numerous nerve fiber tracts and neural centers regulating body changes in response to visual and auditory stimulation.
The forebrain has reached its greatest development in humans and other highly evolved animals, such as porpoises. It comprises the cerebrum, which is covered by the cerebral cortex, the thalamus, and a group of closely related structures forming the limbic system. These parts of the brain mediate our inner mental and emotional processes.
The sensations in your mind are mapped out on the cerebral cortex of your brain, which mediates your conscious sensory and motor functions, as well as complex perceptual processes.Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:09:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7922dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7971It would appear that as long as the brain is not being discussed others are willing to add their non science conjecture to the conversation, and this appears to be the case in most conversation regarding consciousness. Following a different route we might consider the genus Homo.
the question then becomes, "Did others besides Homo Sapiens have consciousness?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siL37TFuTM8&feature=em-subs_digestThu, 08 Aug 2013 14:30:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7971dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7973Is the voice inside your head you, your consciousness, the you that directs your live?
If you think this, who do the others belong to?
http://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head.htmlhttp://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longden_the_voices_in_my_head.htmlThu, 08 Aug 2013 18:45:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7973dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7977Here is a core overview of what we now know about the brain
http://www.ted.com/playlists/1/how_does_my_brain_work.html Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:04:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7977Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7979"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]". Wikipedia quote
Someone or some group has set up a standard of "empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" that does not include many interesting and important areas of investigation. Therefore the first sentence "The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge." Is trumped by the rest of the definition.
If the someone or some group does not want to investigate a "phenomena" they simply deem it as "non science conjecture" , unscientific or Pseudoscience. Here is one problem with all of this prejudice " a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century". Perhaps some areas of science have advanced past the 17th century dogma such as quantum physics and consciousness research.
Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:54:44 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7979dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7984Saying that, "Someone or some group has set up a standard of "empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" that does not include many interesting and important areas of investigation." illustrates a lack of knowledge about the scientific method.
The simple explanation follows:
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
Therefore it does not follow that "some group does not want to investigate a "phenomena."
Is the intent to tell this lie long enough that be becomes a truism?
IONS has a list of such investigated research. They are involved in conducting such research. There is no group that stops any research so let's stop pretending there is.
Try addressing the "scientific" research presented here for consideration instead.
Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:44:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7984Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7988@Dustproduction
"It would appear that as long as the brain is not being discussed others are willing to add their non science conjecture to the conversation, and this appears to be the case in most conversation regarding consciousness"
Please explain in detail this statement. For example what "non science conjecture" are you referring.Fri, 09 Aug 2013 23:19:01 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7988dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7990Try addressing the "scientific" research presented.Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:36:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7990Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7993@Dustproduction
"Consciousness depends primarily on a specific network of regions in the cortex (the wrinkled surface of the brain) and the thalamus (a walnut-sized structure buried deep in the interior)."
There is not much is any "scientific research presented" to be discussed that hasn't already been discussed. You made a reference to and inferred that "non science conjecture" was mentioned in the discussion of the brain. My question was what conjecture are you referring to or what specific discussion was not in line with the thread of this discussion " Consciousness: The question science must answer" the brain has been introduced as a part of consciousness, however it certainly is not the whole ball game.
Please enlighten me with what you consider non science.Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:24:19 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7993dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7997
Directing the conversation way from the subject is a tactic used by those that have little to add to the discussion. Let's stay on topic by focusing on this.
Here are the eight key questions that neuroscientists are now addressing:
1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?
2. What are the mechanisms of general anaesthesia?
3. What is the self?
4. What determines experiences of volition and 'will'?
5. What is the function of consciousness? What are experiences for?
6. How rich is consciousness?
7. Are other animals conscious?
8. Are vegetative patients conscious?Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:32:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7997dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7998re: There has be plenty of research similar to the above which only states where the brain receives its memory not where it is stored.
Have not seen any posted here yet.Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:41:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7998Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7999@Dustproduction
You have again repeated the areas of research you feel is the subject of discussion. What you have not done is answer my question as to what you feel is "non science conjecture" that is being brought up here.Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:49:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_7999dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8004What is Unconscious Thought Theory and how does it pertain to the questions science must answer about conscious thought?
Unconscious Thought Theory runs counter to about the past 30 years of mainstream research on unconscious cognition (see[4] for a review). Many of the attributes of unconscious thought according to UTT are drawn from research by George Miller and Guy Claxton on cognitive and social psychology, as well as from folk psychology; together these portray a formidable unconscious, possessing some abilities far beyond those of conscious thought. UTT is in this respect reminiscent of some classical views of the unconscious that emerged as far back as the early 20th century. Both UTT and Freudian psychoanalytic theory hold that complex operations are performed by the unconscious, but where Freud’s theory suggests that the unconscious represses harmful memories to protect one’s ego, UTT’s version of UT performs rational operations to complete unsolved cognitive or affective tasks. Helmholtz’s theory of unconscious inference also shares UTT’s view that the unconscious’ reasoning mediates our interpretation of the world, but UTT differs from unconscious inference by its clear assertion that unconscious thought is a time-consuming process; Helmholtz’s famous use of perception as an example of unconscious inference suggests that unconscious thought, for him, operates much more quickly. Probably the most striking contrast UTT has with today’s understanding of the unconscious is that between its main claim and studies on implicit perception.[5] Researchers like Anthony Greenwald have used subliminal semantic activation tasks to evaluate unconscious thought by presenting words very quickly to prevent them from entering conscious thought. The unconscious’ inability to process more than one word at a time has led these researchers to conclude that unconscious thought is unsophisticated.[4] But UTT holds that unconscious thought is very sophisticated, enjoying benefits like freedom from bias and the ability to integrate disparate pieces of information more efficiently than conscious thought.Sun, 11 Aug 2013 21:18:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8004Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8005Pierre Janet was the first to use the term (in English) subconscious and because of ,shall we say, hair splitting Freud elected to use the term unconscious. For today's discussion their meanings have little differents. This is an area of consciousness which much is already know however any new research now on going might help with more understanding of how the habits, believes and even physical illness are related the subconscious/unconscious programming. Learning to reprogram the subconscious mind is an area that will help in a lot of areas for a better and happier life. Of course some might call this "non science conjecture".
While this is extremely interesting it isn't that good of a divergent from my question on what Dustproduction feels is "non science conjecture". Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:13:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8005RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8011Folks here ARE addressing the "scientific method," by FIRST exploring what actually constitutes that "scientific method," (beyond Stats 101/Experimental Psychology 101 nomenclature), before it is what is being used and TRUSTED to explore the physiological parts and processes of the brain. Otherwise, it is like a scientist setting out to do "empirical" research, without FIRST bothering to become Conscious enough to truly realize and understand the Universal physics of the MIND that will be setting that research into action, as well as analyzing those "empirical" results!
All around the world, unconscious "researchers" are doing "empirical" studies on telepathy, precognition, ESP, etc., by naïvely putting people in different rooms and seeing if they can know each others' thoughts or anticipate flash cards or whatever, when that doesn't even begin to measure what those REALLY are, because there's a very different process involved. With Enlightenment those researchers would realize that and not waste (or give) research funding for research methodologies that are flawed before they begin! In addition to millions in monies lost, millions who look to those "empirically-insisting" yet unaware researchers BELIEVE and TRUST their "precognition is impossible" results, backed by an equally unconscious and famous theoretical physicist, and political leaders, law enforcement and emergency service personnel EMULATE that seriously flawed "empirical" research, and millions of lives are lost as a result,
So, "scientific methodology" itself absolutely needs to be questioned!Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:49:49 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8011RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8012Part 2...
Conventional science is seriously flawed, and therefore incomplete and misdirected, when it has established its foundation into whatever it is trying to understand upon the "faith" that everything that "matters" is physical, by conventional definition of "physical," and that nothing is real unless and until it has reached a level in which unconscious convention can see it enough to process that it is there! There's the problem. Modern science has inadvertently founded itself upon and within the collective unconscious convention, and has not yet become aware enough to get itself back out of it again!
If you just want to explore Physiological Psychology 101 and Statistics 101, to be able to label and discuss the parts of the brain that can be seen (so far), without any advanced contributions, then I would suggest you create a thread called that, and invite only those who are functioning at that level to feed the conversation in that direction! That's not being sarcastic, that's being practical.
In Nic's thread, I provided a very basic (albeit potentially highly complex for many) first step to "doing the work" toward higher Consciousness, in which the concept of "mother" is slipped out of the boundaries of convention and into the very beginnings (for most folks) of multidimensionality (the true Universal Process). The validity of those "mother" superimpositions DOES NOT BEGIN upon conception, let alone birth, of a person. They have already been set into place loooong before a person has even begun to be considered for conception! Generations upon generations upon generations upon generations...traced back, or forth, inescapably apply! That "mother" superimposition is only the beginning of that revelation. All else likewise applies, as well! That gets into millions, billions, of interconnected processes, and the person hasn't even been born yet! Therefore, a person's life, and life processes, are set into place long before that person exists in that form, let alone has a brain or any of its parts to be the cause or origins of those processes, and the very basics of "consciousness," meaning in the simplest form of reflection, do not require conventional physicality anymore than the "spooky action" of quantum entanglement.Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:51:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8012RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8013Part 3...
The brain is like a referee, trying to mitigate "balance," and the stress of imbalance. (Meditation is the restoration of balance and the reduction of that stress.)
Similarly, an earthquake has loooong been set into place BEFORE convention experiences it, to call it their "earthquake" at all. While conventional "physical" manifestation of that "earthquake" itself was required by their level of processing to notice it, those with Enlightenment could realize its approach, in detail (location, intensity, human/sentient toll, etc.), weeks, months, years before convention's "physical" proof! None of that is "physically" in place by convention's definition of "physicality," but it is nonetheless very, very real multidimensionally.
Everything so blatantly "obvious" to conventional processing gets completely redefined with Higher Consciousness. So if you just want to discuss the brain within the limitations and confines of conventional understanding, that's fine, but it then only provides answers that are likewise limited and confined.Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:52:29 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8013dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8015
Yes ROC, this conversation is limited in the ways you have stated.
In Antonio Damasio's book "Self Comes to Mind" he writes:
"Up to this point, I have attempted to explain the emergence of a conscious mind largely from the perspective of components that can be identified with the naked eye, including the small nuclei of the brain stem and thalamus. What the naked eye does not see, however, is the millions of neurons that make up the networks or systems within those structures, nor the numerous small groupings of such neurons that contribute to the overall effort of making a mind with a self. The ensemble work of the large anatomical divisions is built on the ensemble work of components of gradually smaller scale, all the way down to small circuits of neurons. In this downward anatomical trend, there are smaller and smaller regions of the cerebral cortex; last, at the bottom the the hierarchy, we find the small neuron circuits, the microscopic building blocks whose momentary spatial patterns of activity create minds. The conscious mind is built from the brain's nested, hierarchical componentiality." (Page 2.)
And so on ad infinitum. In Damasio's schematic mind simply has to come from physicality, of which there is no "smallest" component, no quantum level.Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:40:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8015dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8016Re; "Conventional science is seriously flawed, and therefore incomplete and misdirected"
It is on its own level. Those that try to make sense of it all are also at a level. Those that mistrust science are at some other level.
Much, and indeed most of all of this is "flawed" and "incomplete." It can only be this way, since, as it was stated, "All else likewise applies, as well! That gets into millions, billions, of interconnected processes, and the person hasn't even been born yet! Therefore, a person's life, and life processes, are set into place long before that person exists in that form"
This is the paradox. Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:48:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8016Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8017@RealityOverScience
dustproduction is on the same page as Antonio Damasio and many others that are of the opinion that consciousness is produced by electrical and chemical process of the brain. In summery their doctrine is " we are all just chemical and electrical machines". These people will go to their grave believing this so don't bother them with any facts or evidence. God and spirit are simply "delusions" and superstition. So don't be bringing up any of that "non science conjecture" about Enlightenment and just stick to their true science when conversing with this type of thinking. In other words "Don't Rock The Boat" they like the billions that are being spent on dead end concepts. It keeps a lot of their kind off the street who are the otherwise unemployable employed. This frame of mind has kept Big Pharma in business for a while now and a whole lot of other scams. Get real and let these who will not change alone. Can't you see that a lot of other people in this thread have given up on them a long time ago. I know you mean well and have some very interesting concepts to share, however these people are not only not ready for it, they don't want it. These people can't even get past the placebo effect and homeopathy much less Enlightenment. I agree with dustproduction Conventional science is on its own level and it is not about to progress upward. I apologise if I have burst your bubble. Reality as you well know is not for everyone.Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:01:23 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8017dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8024 Individuals with superficial knowledge of a topic or subject may be worse off than people who know absolutely nothing. As Charles Darwin observed, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
Comments filled with such derision are what they are and add little to the discussion.
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:43:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8024dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8025
Leonard Mlodinow wrote an interesting review back in April of the book, "Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People" by Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony Greenwald. I mention it here because the book seems to address this sense of how social responsible we think all are, when it comes to issues like sexual orientation, body weight, height, nationality, disability, and age, and how a little science can step in and shows us that our unconscious mind may hold a different view than our conscious mind, herein allowing people to say one thing and yet behave in another.
Quoting from the review: "In their new book, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, social psychologists Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald examine the nature of today’s social biases, and the difficulty we face in erasing them. The authors’ central point is that most of us are biased toward various groups. Moreover, though some of us are aware of being prejudiced, and some of us publicly express bigoted views, the authors assert that far more of us hold prejudices seated in a deep level of our minds that is inaccessible to our conscious awareness. The attitudes lurking in that blind spot, they say, have an important part in perpetuating discrimination."
Banaji’s and Greenwald’s view aligns the study of prejudice with a larger movement that has transformed academic psychology in recent years. "A quarter of a century ago, most psychologists believed that human behavior was primarily guided by thoughts and feelings. Nowadays the majority will readily agree that much of human judgement and behavior is produced with little consciousness."Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:50:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8025dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8027
I will repost this since it is worth repeating.
Pure science is on a certain level.
Those that try to make sense of it all are also at a level.
Those that mistrust science are at some other level.
Much, and indeed most, of all of this is "flawed" and "incomplete."
It can only be this way, since, as it was stated, "All else likewise applies, as well! That gets into millions, billions, of interconnected processes, and the person hasn't even been born yet! Therefore, a person's life, and life processes, are set into place long before that person exists in that form"
This is the paradox.
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:10:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8027Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8029It is well known that by the age of between five to seven programming of the unconscious or sub conscious mind is set and basic predijust, philosophy, judgement, and self image are set which had been gained by the previous years starting before birth. People become subjects of their environment. Sub conscious believes and programming effect all of life's actions. Even physical illness is effected by sub conscious programming. These are not new revelations to people who have studied what appear to others as non scientific conjecture. It was Dr. Edward Bach who explained it this way in 1936: "This system of healing, which has been Divinely revealed unto us, shows that it is our fears, our cares, our anxieties and such like that open the path to the invasion of illness. Thus by treating our fears, our cares, our worries and so on, we not only free ourselves from our illness, but the Herbs given unto us by the Grace of the Creator of all, in addition take away our fears and worries, and leave us happier and better in ourselves." This is from his book "The Twelve Healers".
No one consciously wants to have ill health. It is the sub conscious that holds the key environment to good or poor health, state of mind and happiness. Where did we obtain our fears and worries if not from our pre eight year old years of programming. Many people have obtained better health by being treated for their sub conscious emotional programming.Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:35:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8029dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8031What appears "divine" has a physical explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTBg6hqeuTg Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:45:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8031dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8032Re: It is well known that by the age of between five to seven programming of the unconscious or sub conscious mind.
"Well known" by whom?
Perhaps you can expand on this un and sub conscious mind, is it a part of the "TV like receiver?"
I should have included this explanation of the video in the previous comment.
"Because we want to understand what genes are required for blood vessel development, Courtney Griffin studies certain enzymes that help turn genes on and off. These enzymes are specifically involved in relaxing DNA that is normally tightly coiled up in our cells. Dr. Griffin is now an Assistant Member in the Cardiovascular Biology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation after receiving her B.A. from Harvard University and her Ph. D. from the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine"Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:52:51 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8032dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8033Myths contain a kernel of truth or it would not survive, but it suffers from the ability to examine its truth.
Science observes and studies.
http://www.nature.com/news/visual-neurons-mapped-in-action-1.13520
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:30:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8033Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8034"Well known" by whom?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj0xVM4x1I&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Djjj0xVM4x1ITue, 13 Aug 2013 13:54:43 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8034Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8036The difference between a true sceptic and a pseudo-sceptic is that a true sceptic will look at and receive new intelligent facts and information. Pseudo-sceptic will not bother to look at or listen to factual evidence. Their mind is made up and no evidence is about to change them. Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:00:43 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8036Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8037I watched and read the article located here: http://www.nature.com/news/visual-neurons-mapped-in-action-1.13520
I was really anticipating some new helpful and important discovery or information. I guess it kept 300 students out of trouble. The video stated that sceptics questioned the value of such a time consuming( and I am sure expensive) process and what information it might add. If we want to make a brain it might be useful. I think there are better ways to do that other than mapping. I have participated in human heart mapping projects while the person was asleep on the operating table with their chest open and exposing their bare heart. Nothing of value was learned. Mapping the brain will not tell much more than what is already know. Will mapping solve spinal cord injuries and repair nerves? For me this would be a lofty goal of neurological research.
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:34:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8037Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8038What does any of the below post have to do with consciousness?Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:37:07 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8038dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8039 Re: Dr. Edward Bach who explained it this way in 1936:
We have learned a bit more in the past 77 years.
Did the information on epigenetics not demonstrate this?
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:21:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8039Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8040
Courtney Griffins video presentation provided by dustproduction was interesting in the fact that we can influence our health by improving our environment. She eluded to the fact that emotions effect our environment and that much information gets laid down in the embroic stage of development. Also how the first few hours can effect positively or negitivly a young rats life according to what information or environment the mother of the baby rats creates. While her solution was a publicity for the drug companies, she ends her remarks urging the audience to improve and be conscious of the environment they create.
The first few hours of a rats life is like 6 or 7 years of a humans life where important positive or negitive information is gained through a child's environment. It seems a lot of people know this information.
A question for consciousness discussion is: What Epigenetics information accompanies us as our spirits enter our physical bodies. Or in other words what information, treats or even personality did we bring with us at conception?Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:32:25 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8040Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8041Dr. Bach was far ahead of his time. His remedies function just as well now as when he first developed them when they are used correctly. Little or no research has been done on how these remedies work mainly because their cost is of no consequence when compared to drug therapies, surgeries, and radiotherapy and have no side effects. They will be more important in the future when broke countries try to find inexpensive solutions to health care cost. Bach Flower Remedies are not a panacea however when used by a skilled and intelligent person preform many important solutions to health concerns and help people live happier life's. Courtney Griffin gives us hints as to how better health can be archived. Dr. Bach Remedies help improve our personal environment. Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:50:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8041dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8044 Re: What Epigenetics information accompanies us as our spirits enter our physical bodies?
Or in other words what information, treats or even personality did we bring with us at conception?
We have two sets of genes, and the markers start to form in utero. There is nature and nurture, and genes and epigenes. No spirits in this model.
The second question is interesting. The suggestion is that the spirit enter a embryo at conception? Is that the model? Where does "spirit" originate? Are we back to a "creator" model again? How unscientific.
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:43:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8044Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8046Interesting how some cultures began counting age at conception rather than birth.Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:27:29 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8046dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8047 "Epigenesis is the concept that covers all those lasting changes in gene expression proﬁles that are controlled by environmental inputs (e.g., via methylation of chromatin surrounding genes that control gene expression levels, as well as other distinct chemical processes such as ‘‘sexual imprinting” of genes) rather than the expression of the intrinsic information in gene nucleotide sequences. The key to higher human psychic development, including the emergence of various idiographic selves, may reside in the manner in which certain foundational evolutionarily provided tools for living (e.g., proto-SELF and core-SELF networks), along with epigenetic programming of higher brain regions by real-world experiences, engender developmental landscapes that permit society, culture and the world in general,to mold higher brain organization, including our language abilities, much more so than the information encoded in genes."
From the research paper The trans-species core SELF: The emergence of active cultural
and neuro-ecological agents through self-related processing within subcortical-cortical midline networks. by Jaak Pankseppa,*, Georg Northoff Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:43:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8047dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8048Systematic reviews of clinical trials of Bach flower remedies found no efficacy beyond a placebo.[3][4]
Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.
Thaler K, Kaminski A, Chapman A, Langley T, Gartlehner G.
Source
Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University, Krems, A-3500, Austria. kylie.thaler@donau-uni.ac.at
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Bach Flower Remedies are thought to help balance emotional state and are commonly recommended by practitioners for psychological problems and pain. We assessed whether Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) are safe and efficacious for these indications by performing a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS:
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2008 and performed a hand-search of references from relevant key articles. For efficacy, we included all prospective studies with a control group. For safety, we also included retrospective, observational studies with more than 30 subjects. Two authors abstracted data and determined risk of bias using a recognised rating system of trial quality.
RESULTS:
Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two additional retrospective, observational studies were identified and included in the review. Three RCTs of BFRs for students with examination anxiety, and one RCT of BFRs for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed no overall benefit in comparison to placebo. Due to the number and quality of the studies the strength of the evidence is low or very low. We did not find any controlled prospective studies regarding the efficacy of BFRs for pain. Only four of the six studies included for safety explicitly reported adverse events.
CONCLUSION:
Most of the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of BFRs has a high risk of bias. We conclude that, based on the reported adverse events in these six trials, BFRs are probably safe. Few controlled prospective trials of BFRs for psychological problems and pain exist. Our analysis of the four controlled trials of BFRs for examination anxiety and ADHD indicates that there is no evidence of benefit compared with a placebo intervention.
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:57:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8048dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8049"Flower remedies": a systematic review of the clinical evidence.
Ernst E.
Source
Institute of Health & Social Care Research, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter, EX2 4NT, U.K. Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Flower remedies (also called "Bach" flower remedies) are used by an increasing number of individuals, and many health claims have been made for them. No systematic review of flower remedies has so far been published.
AIM:
The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and critically analyse the data from all available controlled clinical trials of flower remedies.
METHODS:
Six databases were searched to identify all controlled clinical trials of flower remedies in humans for any medical condition. No language restrictions were applied. Key data were validated and extracted into table format according to pre-defined criteria. Statistical pooling was not possible, and results were evaluated in narrative form.
RESULTS:
Four studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two trials suggested a positive outcome. Those studies that controlled for placebo-effects and minimised selection bias through randomisation failed to demonstrate effects beyond a placebo response.
CONCLUSION:
The hypothesis that flower remedies are associated with effects beyond a placebo response is not supported by data from rigorous clinical trials.Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:57:49 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8049Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8050How does the placebo response function? Few if any ever ask this questions. I suspect that the reason little if any placebo effect research is on going because it can't be patterned and put into a bottle. In many cases it is more effective than multi million dollar research chemical.
The below trials on flower remedies did not indicate the brand of flower remedies used or how they were administered. All flower remedies are not the same. The below information is of little use expect to aid drug companies who employe dustproduction and others like it.Wed, 14 Aug 2013 02:26:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8050dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8055Re: "The below information is of little use expect to aid drug companies who employe dustproduction and others like it."
I am willing to tolerate untruth that operates under the guise of ignorance but this does not permit personal attacks. Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:21:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8055dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8056Re: " I suspect that the reason little if any placebo effect research is on going"
Here is a list from Google Scholar of research into the placebo effect.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=placebo+research&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C46&as_sdtp=
Computers are great at finding research. I suggest others try it before commenting with UNINFORMED opinions.Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:27:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8056Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8077What would be the benefit of posting research information that only appeared to give a certain result when it infact gave no such result, unless it was to deceive readers. Who could benefit from such a deception? What motive except pecuniary interest could cause such action. This is not a personal attract of anyone it is simply an observation of facts.Thu, 15 Aug 2013 02:33:55 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8077Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8078@ dustproduction
Thanks for the link to placebo research. There is a pervasive and continuous concerning about the ethics of using the placebos which I consider very strange because first doctors have been intentionally giving placebos for many years and second much of the positive effect of "scientific medicine" is also the placebo effect. It is almost impossible to separate the chemical reaction of a drug from its placebo effect. So in reality we are not certain of what value the chemical scientific medicine really has in treatment. So the question remains, How much of the chemical scientific medicine is positive effect from the chemical and how much is placebo effect?Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:05:09 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8078dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8085"Consciousness can grow and shrink," said Dr. Marcello Massimini, a neurophysiologist at Italy's University of Milan who led the research to quantify just how much that is happening under different circumstances.
It seems obvious — consciousness fades during deep sleep, and doctors can slip us under with anesthesia. Yet scientists don't have a good way to measure consciousness, especially when the very ill appear to be unconscious. It's important to try to distinguish if patients are at least minimally conscious, and not in a vegetative state, because the sooner there's some sign of awareness, the better the chance of recovery.
http://news.yahoo.com/tool-peeks-brain-measure-consciousness-143447538.htmlThu, 15 Aug 2013 19:21:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8085dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8087When the word "science" is battered around is it with any understanding that includes the complexity with which the brain needs to be discussed? This is a sample of the research that is being done on and as we can see, specificity for various region are well establish. What this research paper goes on explains is that there is no evidence that individuals are left brain or right brain oriented. I encourage others to view the link.
Nine left- and 11 right-lateralized hubs were identified as peaks in the degree map from the graph of significantly lateralized connections. The left-lateralized hubs included regions from the default mode network (medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and temporoparietal junction) and language regions (e.g., Broca Area and Wernicke Area), whereas the right-lateralized hubs included regions from the attention control network (e.g., lateral intraparietal sulcus, anterior insula, area MT, and frontal eye fields). Left- and right-lateralized hubs formed two separable networks of mutually lateralized regions. Connections involving only left- or only right-lateralized hubs showed positive correlation across subjects, but only for connections sharing a node.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071275Thu, 15 Aug 2013 21:55:03 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8087Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8088"What this research paper goes on explains is that there is no evidence that individuals are left brain or right brain oriented."
Looking for the mind in the brain is like looking for the exact location of the pain of a headache. The mind is not in the brain and most importantly the scientist studing the brain don't even know what they are looking for when they are searching for the mind in the brain.
And what does any of this have to do with the placebo effect and how certain interest do not want to discuss the subject of the placebo effect, spiritual healing, homeopathy or any low cost, natural, safe, and highly effective modality for good health that aids self healing. These are Consciousness questions that science must answer.Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:30:45 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8088Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8089A better analogy is like looking at an X-ray of the head in search for enthusiasm.Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:35:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8089Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8090"In 1997, The Lancet published a thorough meta-analysis which showed that, of 89 clinical trials, 44 reported homeopathy to be significantly more effective than placebo;1 none of the 89 trials found placebo to be more effective than homeopathy. Even accounting for any publication bias towards ‘positive’ trials, the authors came to the conclusion that clinical benefit from homeopathic therapy cannot be explained by the placebo effect alone. Similar general conclusions were drawn from other recent meta-analyses or systematic reviews of homeopathy.2–4 Further research is needed to identify, in particular, those medical conditions that respond most effectively to homeopathy.
In the past 4–5 years, a number of new reports have provided additional supportive research evidence in favour of homeopathy for a variety of clinical conditions – compared with placebo or compared with conventional medical therapy. Our analysis of the research evidence for homeopathy takes these recent reports fully into account. We have taken a deliberate decision in this review to concentrate mainly on those ailments for which there has been more than a single research report demonstrating a significant positive effect of homeopathy in at least one measured clinical outcome. We have focused our attention exclusively on original research articles that have been subjected to scientific peer-review. "
http://www.nutrition-matters.co.uk/misc/homeopathy.htm
How homeopathy works is a question science must answer.Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:45:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8090Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8091Much like"scientific 20th century medicine" homeopathy can have the placebo effect as part of its effective properties because it is difficult to separate the two in humans. In animals however where homeopathy works is the placebo effect of any consequence? Or does the consciousness of humans transmit a placebo effect to animals?Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:58:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8091Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8094
What would be the benefit of posting research information that only appeared to give a certain result when it infact gave no such result, unless it was to deceive readers. Who could benefit from such a deception? What motive except pecuniary or other consideration interest could cause such action. This is not a personal attract of anyone it is simply an observation of facts.
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:50:14 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8094dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8096@ BillieGreenjeans
The topic here is consciousness, not home remedies. Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:23:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8096dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8100Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity and the possibilities of experience well then we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.
And there's no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I've ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes. Even if you get your values from religion, even if you think that good and evil ultimately relate to conditions after death -- either to an eternity of happiness with God or an eternity of suffering in hell -- you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes. And to say that such changes can persist after death is itself a factual claim, which, of course, may or may not be true. ....... Sam Harris.Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:21:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8100Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8102@ dustproduction
Thanks for proving my observation.Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:57:07 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8102dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8104Researchers at Johns Hopkins have uncovered a protein switch that can either increase or decrease memory-building activity in brain cells, depending on the signals it detects. Its dual role means the protein is key to understanding the complex network of signals that shapes our brain's circuitry, the researchers say. A description of their discovery appears in the July 31 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130813112359.htmSat, 17 Aug 2013 06:55:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8104dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8107 NOTE TO COMMENTERS:
While I usually tend toward ignoring personal attacks, one must wonder how tolerant a group such as this needs to be?
The conversation "Chaos Theory" was stared due to the similar types of comments posted by an individual, personal attacks Comments of this nature are evident here.
Where do WE draw a line? Should we tolerate ad homenim and what amounts to lies and defamation, when the purpose of these discusses are to engage in thoughtful discuss.
And more importantly, what is the cause of this behavior? Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:00:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8107Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8110Amy Lansky, PhD in her book "Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy (2003)" explains the connection of consciousness and homeopathy. Homeopathy is an appropriate subject for consciousness discussions. Homeopathy and how it works is also a question science must answer. Sun, 18 Aug 2013 01:08:17 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8110Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8111"Distant Healing Intention" by B. F. Malle, Dean Radin, PhD, Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, S. Schmidt, J. Utts, and Garret Yount, PhD provides definitions and a discussion of evolving guidelines for conducting research on the effects of distant healing intention. Healing without chemical medication at a distance has an important place in the study of consciousness. Sun, 18 Aug 2013 01:17:44 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8111Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8113"Measuring cost-effectiveness
Treatment by a homeopath can achieve better outcomes for similar or lower costs
A German study involving 493 patients seen in general practice found that treatment by a homeopath gave better outcomes than conventional treatment for similar costs[4]
In a study involving 499 children aged 18mths to 4 years, homeopathic treatment was found to be more medically effective and cost-effective than antibiotics in the treatment of recurrent upper respiratory tract infections[5]
This French study compared homeopathic and conventional treatment of recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis. Homeopathic treatment gave significantly better results than antibiotics in terms of medical effectiveness (e.g. number of episodes of illness) with lower direct medical costs (88 Euros vs 99 Euros) and significantly less sick-leave (9.5% of parents vs 31.6% of parents).
Trichard M, Chaufferin G Nicoloyannis N. Pharmacoeconomic comparison between homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis in children. Homeopathy, 2005; 94: 3-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15751328
Treatment by a homeopath can reduce the need for conventional drugs
A survey involving 223 patients in an NHS General Practice found that over a 1 year period that treatment by a homeopath was made available, the number of consultations with GPs was reduced by 70% and expenses for medication were reduced by 50%.[6]
Limitations of the study: The costs of homeopathic treatment were not calculated, preventing a comparison with the savings made in the area of conventional treatment.
A 500-patient survey at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital showed that many patients were able to reduce or stop conventional medication following homeopathic treatment.[7] The size of the effect varied between diagnoses, for example 72% of patients with skin complaints reported being able to stop or reduce their conventional medication; for cancer patients there
Potential impact of homeopathy on the NHS budget
The total amount spent on homeopathy in the NHS is approximately £4 million per year, representing just 0.0004% of the total NHS budget.[9] The available evidence tells us that we have a situation where a comparatively small amount of money is being used to generate a very high level of patient satisfaction, but what could be achieved if use of homeopathy within the NHS was expanded?"
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-base-for-homeopathy-2/cost-benefit-studies/
Eventually governments worldwide who are current bankrupt but not honest enough to admit it will be forced to search for lower cost healthcare. There are many low cost consciousness base modalities that get the same or, more often, better results than expensive 20th century modern western scientific chemicals.Sun, 18 Aug 2013 06:29:14 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8113Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8114The Swiss government is looking ahead:
"NaturalNews) In a story akin to "the mouse that roared," a major report from the Swiss government has determined that the very small doses commonly used in homeopathic medicine are both effective and cost-effective. Despite the impressive technological prowess of conventional medicine today, the Swiss government has determined that homeopathy is considerably more cost effective.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035714_homeopathy_Switzerland_health_care.html#ixzz2cKNgnmdTSun, 18 Aug 2013 06:40:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8114dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8116In den letzten Jahren hat die empirische Erforschung des menschlichen Bewusstseins enormen Aufschwung erlebt. Eine der Kernfragen bezieht sich dabei auf das Vorhandensein und die Bedeutung von Selbst-Bewusstsein und deren neuronalen Grundlagen.
Die Unterscheidung zwischen Selbst und Fremd ist eine biologische Notwendigkeit aller Lebewesen. Andererseits ist die Fähigkeit, über sich selbst und seine eigene Wahrnehmungen zu reflektieren, eine der höchsten kognitiven Leistungen. Als ein Test für reflexives Selbst-Bewusstsein gilt der in den 70er Jahren von G. Gallup und B. Amsterdam durchgeführte "Spiegel-Test". Nur Kleinkinder ab dem 18. Lebensmonat und erwachsene Schimpansen erkennen sich selbst im Spiegel. Diese Fähigkeit wird auf das Vorhandensein von Selbst-Bewusstsein zurückgeführt.
Eine internationale Forschergruppe um die Tübinger Ärzte Tilo Kircher und Mathias Bartels, unter Beteiligung von Kollegen aus den Universitäten London, Cambridge und Oxford, hat jetzt erstmals das neuronale Korrelat der Selbst-Erkennung entdeckt. Die Ergebnisse wurden im Januar 2001 in der Zeitschrift "Cognition" veröffentlicht.
In mehreren Versuchen an gesunden Männern haben sie die lokale neuronale Aktivität mit funktioneller Kernspintomographie gemessen. Sie präsentierten den Probanden Fotos ihres eigenen Gesichtes und das ihres Partners (Ehefrau oder Freundin) zum Vergleich, um emotionale Reaktionen auf bekannte Gesichter kontrollieren ("herauskürzen") zu können. Weiterhin wurden Gesichter von unbekannten Männern und Frauen zum Vergleich gezeigt. Bei der Betrachtung des eignen Gesichtes waren weite Teile des rechtshemisphärischen limbischen Systems und der linke Frontallappen aktiviert, bei der Betrachtung des Partners dagegen lediglich ein kleines Areal in der rechten Gehirnhälfte.
Die Ergebnisse zeigen einen dramatischen Unterschied in der neuronalen Verarbeitung des eigenen Gesichts im Vergleich zu einer emotional nahestehenden Person. An der Selbsterkennung sind stammesgeschichtlich sehr junge Areale (linker Frontallappen), die mit der Fähigkeit zur Selbstreflexion in Verbindung gebracht werden, und sehr alte (limbisches System), das vielleicht mit dem diffusen Gefühl des "Selbst" oder "Ich" zusammenhängt, beteiligt.
Die Untersuchungen konnten bisher erstmalig zeigen, das "Selbst-Bewusstsein" mit naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden erforschbar ist. Es eröffnen sich dadurch auch völlig neue Möglichkeiten zur Erforschung von häufigen Erkrankungen wie der Schizophrenie, die mit einer grundlegenden Störung des Selbst-Bewusstseins einhergehen.Sun, 18 Aug 2013 06:57:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8116Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8117@dustproduction
ich nicht sprechen Deutsch
"Background: Out-of-pocket expenditures of over $34 billion per year in the US are an apparent testament to a widely held belief that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have benefits that outweigh their costs. However, regardless of public opinion, there is often little more than anecdotal evidence on the health and economic implications of CAM therapies. The objectives of this study are to present an overview of economic evaluation and to expand upon a previous review to examine the current scope and quality of CAM economic evaluations."
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6882-5-11.pdf
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 07:11:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8117dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8118Neurophysiologist Marcello Massimini of the University of Milan in Italy and his colleagues, who carried out the latest research, have found that electromagnetic stimulation of conscious people’s brains sets off a cascade of activity and generates unique responses in different brain regions. In unconscious people, however, the activity either fails to spread, or there is little variation in the responses from different brain areas.
In the latest study, the researchers present a mathematical measure to quantify the extent and richness of response to the stimulus — a mild electromagnetic pulse applied through the scalp. They applied the technique to 52 people in Italy, Belgium and the United States between 2005 and 2009.
http://www.nature.com/news/metric-for-consciousness-tracks-waking-states-1.13556Sun, 18 Aug 2013 07:13:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8118Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8119A No Brainer
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=watch-vrec&v=3teflb1QNN4Sun, 18 Aug 2013 09:15:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8119Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8120@dustproduction
I certainly understand what you are saying and we just have different opinions on the origin of thought, memory and mind. I'd like to leave it at that. But is there one last thing you'd like to add before we drop the brain discussion?Sun, 18 Aug 2013 09:24:35 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8120Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8131While we are waiting for dustproduction to gather his thoughts and have the last word on consciousness and the brain we could discuse Amy Lanksy's video here: http://vimeo.com/53924117 In which she discusses homeopathy and consciousness. She gives the theories of how homeopathy works and other interesting subjects. The fact that water has memory has been one of the more interesting theories. Perhaps some others could add to the discussion.Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:51:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8131Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8140Here is Dr. Amit Goswami: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6SaBflpiM&feature=related. Discussing consciousness and downward causation and spontaneous remission or cure.Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:13:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8140dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8145 This thread is about consciousness. I will respond to the recent postings with this comment and the expectation that the discussion of homeopathy be taken up on another thread and not here.
Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis's experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with no memory effect observed by the Horizon team.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml
NARRATOR: Homeopathy is back where it started without any credible scientific explanation. That won't stop millions of people putting their faith in it, but science is confident. Homeopathy is impossible.
For a piece on homeopathy, the ABC program 20/20 also attempted, unsuccessfully, to reproduce Ennis's results.
Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:35:34 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8145Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8147In Dr. Amit Goswami's remarks on consciousness and matter was the realisation that matter is consciousness. This statement alone should be a question that science has already addressed. "Matter is Consciousness".
Amy Lansky asserts that homeopathy is consciousness and that being the case then it would logically follow that homeopathy would have an effect on matter because matter is consciousness. I guess there are those scientist, at least they call themselves scientist, who accept quantum mechanics and those who don't.
Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:35:20 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8147Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8148Sorry I made and error:
In Dr. Amit Goswami's remarks on consciousness and matter was the realisation that matter is consciousness. This statement alone should be a question that science has already addressed. "Matter is Consciousness".
Dr. Amy Lansky asserts that homeopathy is consciousness and that being the case then it would logically follow that homeopathy would have an effect on matter because matter is consciousness.
I guess there are those scientist, at least they call themselves scientist, who accept quantum mechanics and those who don't.Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:45:12 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8148dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8149Consciousness: The questions science must answerSun, 25 Aug 2013 07:46:01 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8149dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8150A little knowledge is a danger.
Amit Goswami puts these ideas forward as theory.
He freely admits the limitation of such theories, and his research raises more questions than answers. In this regard I have suggested that there is a framework that is needed to might incorporate such thoughts that will eliminate other paranormal ideas.Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:58:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8150Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8152No I think Dr. Amit Goswami is very sure and certainly unambiguous that "matter is consciousness". Please refrain from misleading readers.Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:41:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8152Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8154@ dustproduction
I suppose you have been busy summing up you final brain discussion and not had time to watch this video:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6SaBflpiM&feature=related
Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:50:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8154dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8155The thought occurs to me that for water were to gain memories of the objects in it, then we can leave a memory of ourselves in the water.
What water have you influenced lately?
But I have a hard time with the term "memory" as it is used here. I do not see it as being the same types of memories animals have, or the same process.
Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:37:30 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8155dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8156If you're trying to learn a new motor skill, practice it right before bed. You're likely to dream about it (whether you remember the dream or not), and your performance will have noticeably improved in the morning.
"Scientists have known for years that sleep is crucial to learning and memory. But exactly how that information consolidates during shut-eye has remained a mystery--until now. Researchers at Brown University found that brain waves in an area of the brain the supplementary motor area (pictured, yellow) that occurred during sleep were associated with better learning of a motor task. The researchers asked a group of students to learn a series of finger-taps, not unlike the motions performed by pianists the world over. For three nights, the subjects slept as usual while their brain waves were recorded. On the fourth day, the subjects were asked to learn the task with their non-dominant hand, and half were allowed to sleep for three hours afterwards. Those who had slept performed better. Brain scans showed that the brainwaves the researchers had observed on the EEG were located in the supplementary motor area. The results further emphasize that sleep is actually very crucial to learning and normal functioning, and isn't just the brain 'resting.'"
Read more: http://bit.ly/17IzU6D
Journal article: Enhanced Spontaneous Oscillations in the Supplementary Motor Area Are Associated with Sleep-Dependent Offline Learning of Finger-Tapping Motor-Sequence Task. Journal of Neuroscience, 2013. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1198-13.2013
Image credit: Yuka Sasaki/Brown UniversitySun, 25 Aug 2013 16:53:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8156bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8157Dusto,
Why don't you hang the brain science for a bit and show us you're soft side?Sun, 25 Aug 2013 17:56:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8157Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8158We are all grateful to dustproduction for all the brain comments and especially this last and final instalment. However the comments on memory of water brings up a lot of thoughts on what goes in to water and how it might effect us all.
The term "memory of water" I believe was first used by Dr. Jacques Benveniste a French scientist who said when he first heard the word "Homeopathy" that it was some sort of sexual disease. His experiments to learn what homeopathy was lead him to write a paper on the subject and present his findings. Nature magazines editor and head pseudo skeptic Sir John Maddox, the same one who stated Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's book "A New Science of Life" was " a book for burning" and " Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy." Dr. Sheldrake is, Iam sure, honoured to be mentioned in the same vain as Galileo Galilei " father of modern observational astronomy".
This same Sir John Maddox sent a team of what was naively believed by Dr. Benveniste as a "team of scientist" headed by none other than the charlatan and lair James Randi to discredit Dr. Benventiste work. They were able to foul the media but not scientist who knew Dr. Benventuste and his reputation as a scientist.
Sir John Maddox, James Randi and the like were and are working to discredit homeopathy because they have a vested interest in some pecuniary or other consideration way by large concerns to do so. For those who have skilfully used Homeopathy including Bach Flower Remedies know of their effectiveness and power and no discussion here can dissuade them from knowledge gained.
Homeopathy is in the heart of and is wholly connected with consciousness and works on that level because "Matter is Consciousness".Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:59:24 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8158charliethttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8159Re - what water have you influenced - there are and have been many experiments and studies with water. Attention, prayer, intention have been directed at water in controlled laboratory conditions. In one that comes to mind the crystals that were formed in the water which was given attention were superior to the isolated water. Another experiment with water and plants showed that the prayed for water had a more beneficial effect on the plants, The conclusion was that the water which received the attention, intention or prayer showed differences from the isolated water, this would probably be memory associated within the water which would indicate consciousness. This would then bring one to ask, are all things conscious?
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:41:00 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8159dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8160ANALOGIES change. Once, it was fashionable to describe the brain as being like the hydraulic systems employed to create pleasing fountains for 17th-century aristocrats’ gardens. As technology moved on, first the telegraph network and then the telephone exchange became the metaphor of choice. Now it is the turn of the computer. But though the brain-as-computer is, indeed, only a metaphor, one group of scientists would like to stand that metaphor on its head. Instead of thinking of brains as being like computers, they wish to make computers more like brains. This way, they believe, humanity will end up not only with a better understanding of how the brain works, but also with better, smarter computers.
These visionaries describe themselves as neuromorphic engineers. Their goal, according to Karlheinz Meier, a physicist at the University of Heidelberg who is one of their leaders, is to design a computer that has some—and preferably all—of three characteristics that brains have and computers do not. These are: low power consumption (human brains use about 20 watts, whereas the supercomputers currently used to try to simulate them need megawatts); fault tolerance (losing just one transistor can wreck a microprocessor, but brains lose neurons all the time); and a lack of need to be programmed (brains learn and change spontaneously as they interact with the world, instead of following the fixed paths and branches of a predetermined algorithm).
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21582495-computers-will-help-people-understand-brains-better-and-understanding-brainsMon, 26 Aug 2013 08:54:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8160dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8161Masaru Emoto (江本 勝 Emoto Masaru?, born July 22, 1943) is a Japanese author and entrepreneur, best known for his claims that human consciousness has an effect on the molecular structure of water. Emoto's hypothesis has evolved over the years of his research. Initially he believed that water takes on the "resonance" of the energy which is directed at it, and that polluted water can be restored through prayer and positive visualization. Emoto's work is widely considered pseudoscience by professionals, and he is criticized for going directly to the public with misleading claims that violate basic physics, based on methods that fail to properly investigate the truth of the claims.
Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings. Writing about Emoto's theory in the Skeptical Inquirer, physician Harriet A. Hall concluded that it was "hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science".
Images of the crystals can be seen here: http://www.unitedearth.com.au/watercrystals.htmlMon, 26 Aug 2013 09:03:57 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8161dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8162 These observation are base on the TEDTalk by John Searle
Notes that consciousness is a purely biological phenomenon that occurs in the neurological processes of the brain, creating a subjective experience which is both real and unique to the individual.
Consciousness is real for the individual rather than an illusion and is irreducible. It is unlike a machine at this point because we don't know how consciousness works. We are not yet close to that level of complexity with artificial intelligence.
Consciousness causes us to feel, smell, and hear, and the old notion of a mind body duality is incorrect. In other words, the mind and body are not are not separate; there is no soul or mind separate from the body.
Consciousness creates "an observer independent reality," and therefore it is relative. The neurology of the brain is an extremely complex program or software that is well beyond our ability to create at present.
Consciousness is a genuine biological phenomenon which is subject to scientific analysis in the same way any other biological feature.
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:31:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8162charliethttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8163Re water being influenced. I does not surprise me that you gave the skeptics point of view, I have grown to expect this from you. Problem is that I will take the insight of people like Russell Targ and Dean Radin in their comments towards this before I will even consider the input of a skeptic, this is how a skeptic makes a living, to be negative no matter what. To Targ and Radin it really makes no difference as to what the outcome was, either it showed results or it was a flop, they make no monetary gain from it. Not only Targ and Radin have given positive comments on the experiments with water, many other PHD's have done the same. Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:05:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8163Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8164@ charliet
There is a difference between a skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic. The difference is honesty. The skeptic is searching for the truth and doesn't fall for just any old think however will change their mind when presented with true facts. The pseudo-skeptic pretends to be in search of truth, however when presented with fact that are true simply changes the subjects as if never saw the facts. The pseudo-skeptics often have a conflict of interest in particular subjects, like homeopathy for example, because she or he has a contractual arrangement that promises some consideration for continuing to ignore facts and discredit new damaging information and revelations of the "party of the first part " his or her contractees point of interest. Pseudo-skeptic like James Randi most likely doesn't have one million dollars because when his challenge is met he ignores the facts and attracts some other person or modality.
The truth about consciousness might hurt some large concerns bottom line profit so disinformation is a way to keep a good(bad)business in business.Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:37:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8164dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8165Why not include the skeptics point of view? Let's hear both sides of the argument, yes?
There are at least two sides and this research is hotly debated.
I've included the link to the photos of the crystals as well. My point in posting this is that it argues for another term in place of memory; resonance.
My positions here is to promote discussion since ALL research on consciousness is currently theory and hypothesis. Rather then slap each other on the backs and parrot the work of others we might be innovative and think to draw with our crayons beyond the lines. It is permitted here.
That said I have may own biases in thinking that consciousness is an emergent property of our physical biology. Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:30:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8165dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8166 “Discontinuity theories argue for a critical functional transition that “switches on consciousness” while continuity theories argue for a gradual transition in consciousness from unrecognizable to recognizable.”
http://academia.edu/1610087/ Evolution_of_consciousnessMon, 26 Aug 2013 12:30:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8166Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8167The debate is then upward causation or downward causation. Upward begins from the smallest unit of life and continues to a human body made up trillions of these smallest units. Downward causation would begin with a higher being or consciousness than us and flow downward to the smallest unit.
One is without God the other is with God. A theory that places consciousness in a chemical reaction would be a upward causation. The question to ask of the upward causation is : How does creative crayon out of the box thinking begin as a chemical reaction? Does what I ate for breakfast cause my creative thinking? What chemicals makes the difference in an upward causation person and a downward causation person?Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:47:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8167dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8168"Separate a living organism from its surroundings and it will die shortly because of lack of oxygen, water and food. Organisms are open systems: they cannot survive without continuously exchanging matter and energy with their environment. The peculiarity of open systems is that they interact with other systems outside of themselves. This interaction has two components: input, that what enters the system from the outside, and output, that what leaves the system for the environment. In order to speak about the inside and the outside of a system, we need to be able to distinguish between the system itself and its environment. System and environment are in general separated by a boundary. For example, for living systems the skin plays the role of the boundary. The output of a system is in general a direct or indirect result from the input. What comes out, needs to have gotten in first. However, the output is in general quite different from the input: the system is not just a passive tube, but an active processor. For example, the food, drink and oxygen we take in, leave our body as urine, excrements and carbon dioxide. The transformation of input into output by the system is usually called throughput. This has given us all the basic components of a system as it is understood in systems theory."
So yes, what we eat plays a role, and has an effect.
The researchers found that, compared with the women who didn't consume the probiotic yogurt, those who did showed a decrease in activity in both the insula — which processes and integrates internal body sensations, like those from the gut — and the somatosensory cortex during the emotional reactivity task.
Further, in response to the task, these women had a decrease in the engagement of a widespread network in the brain that includes emotion-, cognition- and sensory-related areas. The women in the other two groups showed a stable or increased activity in this network.
During the resting brain scan, the women consuming probiotics showed greater connectivity between a key brainstem region known as the periaqueductal grey and cognition-associated areas of the prefrontal cortex. The women who ate no product at all, on the other hand, showed greater connectivity of the periaqueductal grey to emotion- and sensation-related regions, while the group consuming the non-probiotic dairy product showed results in between.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/changing-gut-bacteria-through-245617.aspx?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer67e2e&utm_medium=twitterMon, 26 Aug 2013 16:55:29 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8168dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8169According to reductionism, the laws governing the parts determine or cause the behavior of the whole. This is "upward causation": from the lowest level to the higher ones. In emergent systems, however, the laws governing the whole also constrain or "cause" the behavior of the parts.
http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/SYSAPPR.html
Searle's says, "Consciousness consists of all those states of feeling or sentience or awareness. It begins in the morning when you wake up from a dreamless sleep, and it goes on all day until you fall asleep or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this definition." This is his common sense definition. His answer to the philosophical mind/body problem, "ALL of our conscious states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher-level or system features."
But Searle also is clear to point out that consciousness is real and irreducible. "You cannot get rid of it by showing that it's an illusion in a way that you can with other standard illusions."
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html
You cannot have organisms whose internal functioning flouts the rules of physics and chemistry. However, the laws of physics are completely insufficient to determine which shapes or organizations will evolve in the living world. Once a particular biological organization has emerged, it will strongly constrain the behavior of its components.Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:44:40 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8169Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8170"However, the laws of physics are completely insufficient to determine which shapes or organizations will evolve in the living world."
This realisation was the motivation, in part, for Sheldrakes theory of Morphic Resonance. Quantum physics seems to defy the "laws of physic" and is ignored as part of the whole. In other words if it doesn't fit in with the "laws of physics" so just pretend it doesn't exist.
If the "laws of physics" are insufficient then it might be wise to consider other theories. Just remaining in the dark is no answer. Changing view point is necessary to over come a for sure lack of understanding. Chasing the dogs tail in circles doesn't answer any questions. A new approach must be considered.
Quantum physics theory of non locality could help break out of the endless circles of "insufficient laws of physics". Non locality could lead to greater understanding of consciousness which could lead us to understanding how homeopathy functions, because it does function. Because homeopathy functions the "how" it functions is important. Most all homeopathy preparations now are simply made with an input of information not from the natural source and they function just as well. The sucussion has been replaced by vortex swirling and function just the same. So how can information alone effect the physical. "The laws of physics" are insufficient to answer these questions. To sweep it under the carpet of "it is only an imaginary result" is ignoring possibilities that the "laws of physics" which are insufficient can not answer. "Oh it is only the placebo effect" has been tried before and lost by bring up even greater questions that the "laws of physic", which are insufficient, can not answer. For example : How and when does the placebo effect work? Why does it not work every time? More questions the "laws of physics", which are insufficient, can not answer.
Perhaps a new approach is needed. Chemical changes in the brain can have an effect on consciousness as the psychedelic chemicals have proven. Another area not explained by "the laws of physics". There are many more unanswered questions. Perhaps it is time to break the circle cycle and look in a different direction.Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:53:56 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8170dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8173Perhaps I have this wrong, be if this process of preparing a dilution as remedy involves an 'other,' isn't the water which is part of the dilution imprinted through this "memory of water?" This brings into question whether it is the remedy or the imprinting, this memory in the water, that is causing an effect. Who prepares the remedy has as much to do with the benefits as the remedy itself. The remedy is therefore a placebo.
Is the real benefit derived from the other?
I will suggest it does, but only in small ways that are dependent on other factor.
One of my favorite TEDTalks says the hand is the most important tool in healing.
http://www.ted.com/talks/abraham_verghese_a_doctor_s_touch.html
In all, homeopathy is too limited a system to make a huge difference, in fact it is still trying to understand itself.
See, "The Ghost in the Genes"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFVgQ82ZY
"Biology stands on the brink of a shift in the understanding of inheritance. The discovery of epigenetics -- hidden influences upon the genes -- could affect every aspect of our lives.
At the heart of this new field is a simple but contentious idea -- that genes have a 'memory'. That the lives of your grandparents -- the air they breathed, the food they ate, even the things they saw -- can directly affect you, decades later, despite your never experiencing these things yourself. And that what you do in your lifetime could in turn affect your grandchildren."
See Robert Sapolski's leacture, 'Stress, Neurodegeneration and Individual Differences'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ysG9ay8TAs
One word, "glucocorticiods"
This is an level of our understanding things today.
And to comprehend the world at this level is to understand that consciousness can be emergent Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:14:07 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8173Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8174"Who prepares the remedy has as much to do with the benefits as the remedy itself. The remedy is therefore a placebo." I don't understand your conclusion. Yes who prepares the remedy is important just as the quantum observations are effected by who observes. To say that the remedy is a placebo is not exactly correct. A placebo is effective by the person taking the remedy and by the person administering it as well. This occurs with chemical medicines also. Which is proof that consciousness is everywhere and is difficult if not impossible to escape effecting all we do.
I believe it can not be answered as to what percentage of the efficacy of a chemical medicine is the placebo effect and what is the chemical. Unless the placebo effect in the trials is subtracted from the chemical medicine efficacy.
Homeopathy will once again become the major modality of medicine because of its extreme low cost and efficacy. Economy will rule all.Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:18:40 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8174dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8175"Myelination is the process by which an electrically insulating layer known as a myelin sheath develops over neurons, the nerve cells responsible for transmitting electrical signals throughout the body. Specifically, myelination forms a myelin layer over the axon, the long, fibrous section of a neuron along which electrical signals are transmitted. The myelin sheath greatly increases the speed at which electrical impulses travel throughout the body. Many processes that are initiated, maintained, or terminated by rapidly-propagated nerve signals could not occur at a sufficient rate without the myelin sheath.
Signal transduction along neurons lacking myelin tends to be quite slow, as the signals are forced to travel at a constant rate down uninsulated axons. Myelination, however, greatly increases the speed of transduction. It does not occur along the entire length of the neuron but instead leaves tiny gaps referred to as "nodes of Ranvier." Signals, instead of traveling at a constant rate down an uninsulated axon, are instead able to "jump" from node to node in a process called "saltatory conduction."
All of this is know to be a part of recall and connected to memory in the brain.Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:54:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8175dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8176My conclusion was base on the thought that the water contains more "energy" from the preparer than it has from the dilution. So the "medicine" part is really just placebo, in that it may not heal anything. It might be the water and the energy in the water, according to this way of thinking.Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:57:49 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8176Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8177You have hit on an important point of consciousness and how our thoughts and intentions can effect everything around us including water or powerful chemical medicine. Just thinking about something can have an effect. Your way of thinking is interesting as to how homeopathy works, however any effective placebo does heal or cause its intended action such as pain relief.
I suggest you take the time to watch This video to help your understanding: http://vimeo.com/53924117
The presenter is coming from a skeptic view point and changed her position as her child was helped by homeopathy. Perhaps you will change your view point as well.
As I have stated in the past homeopathy will win out soon as broke and bankrupt governments search of less expensive modalities of health care and as more homeopathy and nutropathy practitioners arrive ready to work.Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:49:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8177dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8181see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
Phenomenal consciousness refers to the qualitative, subjective, experiential, or phenomenological aspects of conscious experience, sometimes identified with qualia. (In this article I also use the term “sentience” to refer to phenomenal consciousness.) To contemplate animal consciousness in this sense is to consider the possibility that, in Nagel's (1974) phrase, there might be “something it is like” to be a member of another species. Nagel disputes our capacity to know, imagine, or describe in scientific (objective) terms what it is like to be a bat, but he assumes that there is something it is like. There are those, however, who would challenge this assumption directly. Others would less directly challenge the possibility of scientifically investigating its truth. Nevertheless, there is broad commonsense agreement that phenomenal consciousness is more likely in mammals and birds than it is in invertebrates, such as insects, crustaceans or molluscs (with the possible exception of some cephalopods), while reptiles, amphibians, and fish constitute an enormous grey area for most scientists and philosophers. However, some researchers are even willing to attribute a minimal form of experiential consciousness to organisms that are phylogenetically very remote from humans and that have just a few neurons (Ginsburg & Jablonka 2007a).
Self-consciousness refers to an organism's capacity for second-order representation of the organism's own mental states. Because of its second-order character (“thought about thought”) the capacity for self consciousness is closely related to questions about “theory of mind” in nonhuman animals — whether any animals are capable of attributing mental states to others. Questions about self-consciousness and theory of mind in animals are a matter of active scientific controversy, with the most attention focused on chimpanzees and to a more limited extent on the other great apes. As attested by this controversy (and unlike questions about animal sentience) questions about self-consciousness in animals are commonly regarded as tractable by empirical means.Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:18:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8181Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8186"A high percentage of pigs being fattened in intensive livestock farms become ill, suffering mainly from diseases of the respiratory tract. Low-dose antibiotic metaphylaxis* is routinely used in an attempt to reduce the incidence of disease. In this study which involved 1440 piglets, homeopathic metaphylaxis was found to be more effective than placebo at reducing the incidence of disease, and as effective as the low-dose antibiotics."
Thanks for bring up animals in homeopathy. Some say this is the ultimate in overcoming the "placebo" argument as the reason for effectiveness in humans because animals have not been proven to have a placebo effect and yet all research on homeopathy and animals shows great effectiveness. There must be something working in the normal grape alcohol, water and information in homeopathic remedy. The information is the "active ingredient". http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-base-for-homeopathy-2/animal-studies/#link_research
@ dustproduction. Where you able to understand Dr. Lansky's remarks? She would probably be the first to agree she is not the most eloquent presenter, however she makes up for it in intelligents and research. http://vimeo.com/53924117Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:11:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8186dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8189I do not know what to make of Lasker. We have little information about the autism her son had. From the research I've read on autism, child can simply "grow out of it" in mild cases. Other research say diet has a role. Lasker attributes many things to her son's improvement.
I read this from Dr.Amy Tuteur:
"The concept that autism is an intrinsic feature of the child is rejected for the more acceptable fantasy that autism is something that happened to the “real” child, and can therefore be prevented or reversed by simple modifications of the environment.
This fantasy dovetails nicely with the dominant contemporary mothering ideology that positions mothers as risk managers who “educate” themselves (about pregnancy, birth, vaccination, food, etc.) for the project of creating the perfect child. The child thus produced simultaneously reflects the mother’s competence, and advertises the mother’s superiority among her peers.
The autistic child, in many ways viewed by our society as the ultimate imperfect child, is a visible sign of parental failure. The desperation to avoid the stigma of this failure leaves mothers of autistic children particularly vulnerable to quacks and charlatans (like Jenny McCarthy) peddling pseudo-scientific theories of autism’s cause, its prevention and its treatment.
Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:36:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8189Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8192"The homeopathic medicine Sepia 200c can reduce the rate of ovarian cysts and postpartum (postpartum = after giving birth) complications in dairy cows[4]
In this scientifically rigorous study, cows were randomly given either Sepia 200c or placebo on days 14 or 21 after delivering their calves. It was found that the 101 cows given Sepia 200c had significantly fewer postpartum complications than the control group. The study also found that the number of ovarian cysts in the Sepia-treated group dropped from 38% to 12% over the three-year study period (an incidence rate of 10% being considered normal for dairy herds).1
1. Williamson AV et al. A trial of Sepia 200: Prevention of anoestrus problems in dairy cows. Br Homoeopathic J, 1995; 84 (1): 14-20"Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:25:40 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8192Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8196Dr Amy Lansky. (Names ending in sky are often of Russian origin.) Read her book for details about her son.
Lots of pseudo skeptics on the Internet trying to make a buck. I guess we can't condem them it is just that their sub conscious desire for financial security is greater than their integrity.Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:21:14 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8196Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8197"Homeopathic Mercury Chloride 15c can reduce mortality from mercury chloride poisoning in mice by 40%[3]
In nine high-quality experiments, all mice were given a lethal injection of mercury chloride; one group was also given daily injections of Mercury Chloride 15c (both before and after the toxic injection) while the other control group was left untreated. The number of rats who had died by day 10 after toxic injection was significantly lower in the group given Mercury Chloride 15c compared with the untreated group. A meta-analysis* of all nine trials by Linde et al. showed that Mercury Chloride 15c treatment reduced mortality was by 40%.
This is an example of a toxicology study. Various types of toxicology studies have been used to investigate UHDs**, but all involve the same basic concept; an animal is given a poisonous substance in its usual form and in UHD form so that any interaction between the two can be observed e.g. a change in how the toxin affects the animal or how the animal excretes it.
* a statistical technique used to analyse the combined results of multiple studies to generate a more meaningful overall result
** ultra-high dilution such that no molecules of the original substance are left, prepared in the same way as homeopathic medicines"
http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/?c=8196#comments_formFri, 30 Aug 2013 05:26:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8197dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8202Returning to consciousness again, "An excerpt from "The Thinking Ape: The Enigma of Human Consciousness" featuring Steve Paulson, Nicholas Schiff, Daniel Kahneman, Laurie Santos and David Chalmers."
This particular excerpt deals with "minimal conscious state," (MCS).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nPq3Qtjwsi8
Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:47:51 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8202Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8203From this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nPq3Qtjwsi8 (thanks to dustproduction) it is obvious that the understanding of brain injuries has a long way to go and that it is far from any discussion about consciousness and the intent of these threads because
"IONS™ conducts, sponsors, and collaborates on leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness, exploring phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor."
Brain injuries, while an important discussion for neurosurgeons, is out of character here at IONS. So any discussion of physical brain functions, which are more like discussions of computer hardware, and ignoring the spirit that creates life and physical functions is better served in a skeptics website where any mention of a spiritual controlling of the body is deemed pseudo science and other such derogatory terms.
The chemical and electrical functions of the brain DO NOT create consciousness. Disruptive discussion said to be the "other side of the story" is simply a coverup for malicious disruption.
@dustproduction How long do you think these people are going to continue to pay you for this disruption when they realise you are found out and all your post are ignored. Get some integrity and shun this kind of work. You will be happier and healthier when you do.
If you feel I have made a mistake in my understanding of your intentions then simply make a denial or otherwise your silence will be an admission.
An admission of intent to disrupt is not tolerated in Wikipedia so why should it be tolerated here? Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:35:19 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8203dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8205(I have denied the claims you have raised in the past, and requested that you provide any proof the you have to support your allegation.
How many times do you intend to repeat them? PUT UP your evidence, OR SHUT UP! No one is forcing you to read this thread, and IONS can determine what is suitable and what is not.)
Re: whether the post applied, "1. Consciousness depends primarily on a specific network of regions in the cortex (the wrinkled surface of the brain) and the thalamus (a walnut-sized structure buried deep in the interior). Some of these regions are important for determining the level of consciousness (the difference between waking and dreamless sleep) while others are involved in shaping conscious content (the specific qualities of any given experience)."
Clearly "levels of consciousness" is a part of the discussion, and exploring minimal states of consciousness can shed light on the part of the brain that create consciousness.
A part of the question of this thread is that consciousness may NOT the executive controller in the brain. We have assumed that it is the voice of our soul or spirit, but if there is a spirit it more than likely is the unconscious or subconscious part and not the conscious.
This would then beg the question of the need for consciousness; what is its role?
Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:34:01 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8205Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8208@ dustproduction
Replying that you have "denied in the past" is not a denial. My evidence is common among all readers. Your avoidance of any discussion about homeopathy and the placebo effect is evidence enough. You continually change the subject when any discussion is raised in these and other areas of alternative health care. It is common knowledge here that certain special interest in the pharmaceutical business would like to continue to portray these types of modalities as "pseudo science" with no effectiveness all to insure their profits.
Your refusal to deny is profit it's self.Sat, 31 Aug 2013 08:54:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8208dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8209I do not have to proven anything to anyone here least of all you Mr. Greenjeans
FRO THE RECORD, I DENY AND RESENT YOUR ALLEGATION, and I use the term "allegation" because it it defined as "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. "
As for homeopathy, I have responded that this is not the thread for that discussion, but being the pain in the ass that you are, you seek to engage anyone you can with this nonsense. I have responded that it has no credibility in science. It's not this I don't respond it is that I am attempting to ignore your discussions of the topic.
Placebo is another story. I do find evidence that placebo has better outcomes than pharmaceutical drugs. See the research of Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch who says a placebo can be effective even if a patient knows the pill doesn't have an active ingredient.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399364n
Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:35:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8209Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8212
To label homeopathy as "nonsense" and " has no credibility in science" is to ignore scientific research data based on your own prejudice and fear for what change its truth might reveal.
"I do find evidence that placebo has better outcomes than pharmaceutical drugs". Yes: our question here should be why?
“From 2001 to 2006, the percentage of new products cut from development after Phase II clinical trials, when drugs are first tested against placebo, rose by 20 percent. The failure rate in more extensive Phase III trials increased by 11 percent, mainly due to surprisingly poor showings against placebo.
Despite historic levels of industry investment in R&D, the US Food and Drug Administration approved only 19 first-of-their-kind remedies in 2007—the fewest since 1983—and just 24 in 2008. Half of all drugs that fail in late-stage trials drop out of the pipeline due to their inability to beat sugar pills.”
“Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. In many cases, these are the compounds that, in the late '90s, made Big Pharma more profitable than Big Oil. But if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them.
It's not that the old meds are getting weaker, drug developers say. It's as if the placebo effect is somehow getting stronger.
The fact that an increasing number of medications are unable to beat sugar pills has thrown the industry into crisis.”
My intent is to find truth even if it cause a "pain in the ass" for some.
Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:38:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8212dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8214You got your denial.
Find your version of "truth" on another thread, or discuss consciousness. Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:45:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8214Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8216I am discussing consciousness. Healing without chemicals in a way that is non physical and yet effects the physical has considerable to do with consciousness. Prayer or distance healing for example is one way. Homeopathy is another.Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:54:17 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8216dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8217This research paper focuses on several issues regarding the primary states of consciousness.
In recent years there has been an expansion of scientific work on consciousness. However, there is an increasing necessity to integrate evolutionary and interdisciplinary perspectives and to bring affective feelings more centrally into the overall discussion. Pursuant especially to the theorizing of Endel Tulving (1985, 2004, 2005), Panksepp (1998a, 2003, 2005) and Vandekerckhove (2009) we will look at the phenomena starting with primary-process consciousness, namely the rudimentary state of autonomic awareness or unknowing (anoetic) consciousness, with a fundamental form of first-person ‘self-experience’ which relies on affective experiential states and raw sensory and perceptual mental existences, to higher forms of knowing (noetic and autonoetic) and self-aware consciousness. Since current scientific approaches are most concerned with the understanding of higher declarative states of consciousness, we will focus on these vastly underestimated primary forms of consciousness which may be foundational for all forms of higher ‘knowing consciousness’.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810009001093Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:55:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8217Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8218Why does the placebo effect often have a better healing or desired effect out come then chemical drugs?Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:57:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8218dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8230
The evolution of consciousness
Max Velmans, Goldsmiths, University of London, Lewisham Way, New Cross, London SE146NW.
Email: m.velmans@gold.ac.uk; Website: http://www.gold.ac.uk/psychology/staff/velmans/
In D. Canter and D. Tunbull (eds.) Biologising the Social Sciences. Special Issue of Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences (prepublication version)
Abstract
.
There have been various attempts to apply Darwinian evolutionary theory to anunderstanding of the human condition within psychology and the social sciences. This paper evaluates whether Darwinian Theory can explain human consciousness. Starting with a brief definition of phenomenal consciousness and the central features of evolutionary theory, the paper examines whether random variations in the genome that confer a selective, reproductive advantagecan explain both the emergence of consciousness and its varied forms. To inform the discussion, the paper reviews what is known about the conditions for consciousness within the human mind/brain,understood in both structural (neural) terms and functional terms (in terms of human information processing), and concludes that
“random variations in the genome” provide no explanatory
mechanism for why some neural activities (but not others) are accompanied by consciousness
.
The paper then evaluates the many functional advantages that have been proposed for various forms of phenomenal consciousness once they emerge, and concludesthat, on close examination, phenomenal experiences themselves do not carry out theinformation processing functions attributed to them, which challenges the Darwinianrequirement that they could only have persisted (once emergent) it they enhanced reproductive fitness. The paper turns finally to what can be said about wider distribution of consciousness in non-humans, contrasting discontinuity theories with continuity theories.
Discontinuity theories argue for a critical functional transition that “switches onconsciousness” while continuity theories argue for a gradual transition in consciousness from
unrecognisable to recognisable. All theories accept that there is an intimate, natural relationship of conscious experiences with their associated material forms. Consequently, asthe material forms evolve, their associated experiences co-evolve
—
suggesting an indirect mechanism by which the emergence of species-specific forms of consciousness can beinfluenced by Darwinian evolution. It also allows a non-reductive understanding of humanconsciousness within the social sciences.
http://www.academia.edu/1610087/Evolution_of_consciousnessMon, 02 Sep 2013 09:22:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8230Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8235http://rense.com/general50/james.htmMon, 02 Sep 2013 13:31:05 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8235dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8237Please do not post here if it does not apply to the question. Please don't post here just to provoke other commenters.
Toward a Science of Consciousness
The Tucson Conference
20th Anniversary
April 21-26 2014
Toward a Science of Consciousness, is the largest and longest-running interdisciplinary conference emphasizing broad and rigorous approaches to the study of conscious awareness probing fundamental questions related to conscious experience. Topical areas include neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, biology, quantum physics, meditation and altered states, machine consciousness, culture and experiential phenomenology & contemplative approaches.
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:00:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8237dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8256Many refer to memory as if it was a thing, "a unit" of experience. To say that there is a "copy" of a memory in the brain is a misconception and this is provably by examples of patients with a severed corpus collosum
"The right hand and eye could name an object, such as a pencil, but the patient could not explain what it was used for. When shown to the left hand and eye, the patient could explain and demonstrate its use, but could not name it."
http://www.viewzone.com/bicam.html
"The two brains The left & right) not only see the world in vastly different ways but, in our current society, the left side just "doesn't get" what the right side is all about. It tends to dismiss anything significant coming into consciousness from its "flaky" cranial twin. Sometimes two sides can actually disagree, resulting in our perception of emotional turmoil from the expressive protests of right brain.
Our conscious mind can only focus on data from one brain at a time. We can switch from one side to the other very quickly (with our corpus collosum intact) but that's not always the most efficient way to act and eventually ultimate authority to enter consciousness is delegated to one brain or the other. In our modern world, this battle is almost always won by the left brain."Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:42:53 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8256Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8262 To say that there is a war between the two hemispheres of the brain and the left brain wins out more often is an orginal way of describing what is normally described as left or right brain dominance.
From early childhood learning is experiencial and abstract concepts are non existent in other words the child is right brain dominance using the entire body to explore and comprehend. As abstract concepts are introduced in school the left brain begins to learn its part. I Q test are left brain based and so left brain people are considered the brightest. If the test were right brain based, right brain people would be the geniuses. The ideal is to be whole brain using each hemisphere equally.
The world we live in is left brain. Formal education is generally left brain in most classes, getting a job is often left brained even for a right brained job. Stress from driving a car is left brained. These are some of the reasons we live in a left brained world.Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:41:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8262dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8263What is that statement base on?
Where is the evidence to support this understanding of the brain?
To me it appears to be a uninformed opinion.Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:52:46 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8263dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8265I write, "What is that statement based on?" because I am looking for the consistency here. Tie this back to the statement " memory is not stored in the brain, just as the image of the TV is not stored in the TV set." Wed, 04 Sep 2013 19:41:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8265Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8266Don't be so touchy. This is not a "personal attract". This is expounding on the subject you brought up and has more to do with psychology than brain function.
Here is a brief explanation: http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/left-brain-right-brain.htm
"Later research has shown that the brain is not nearly as dichotomous as once thought. For example, recent research has shown that abilities in subjects such as math are actually strongest when both halves of the brain work together."
http://psychology.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=psychology&cdn=education&tm=352&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=9&bts=81&zu=http%3A//www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2004/04/interhemispheric.aspx
Here is a test to see which hemisphere in which you are dominant :
http://www.wherecreativitygoestoschool.com/vancouver/left_right/rb_test.htmWed, 04 Sep 2013 21:17:17 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8266Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8267There is a bit of evidence that the mind is extended and not inside the head or brain if you are interested.Wed, 04 Sep 2013 21:34:32 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8267dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8268Anyone can google information on the hemispheres of the brain.
There are distinct positions that have been taken in this discussion that are in conflict and I have asked how they tie together.
Where is the explanation, in the resource provided here there supports, the claim, "From early childhood learning is experiencial and abstract concepts are non existent in other words the child is right brain..."? Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:46:20 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8268Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8269You are much better at "googling" than I am and I am certain if you search childhood development learning you can find what you want. My knowledge on the subject was gained about thirty years ago from a friend who was doing research on the subject. I am sure you can find all the information you and the rest of us need.
You avoided answering my question on whether you wanted to see any evidence on the extended mine or not. Just say yes or no and that will be good enough for me.Wed, 04 Sep 2013 23:58:30 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8269dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8273This is an important point: while it is fine to speculate about brain function or offer opinions, submitting explanations about of how the brain functions must provide for an integrated system.
Claims such as "From early childhood learning is experiencial and abstract concepts are non existent in other words the child is right brain.." or
"memory is not stored in the brain, just as the image of the TV is not stored in the TV set." need to be tied together in a comprehensive way or the commenters must change their thinking and adopt a framework with integrity. Enough research exists to explain away false concepts for those open to learning.
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 06:53:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8273Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8274Please don't change the subject
You just have to say yes I would like to read some scientific facts on the extended mind or no I don't want to read any scientific facts on the extended mind.
YES
NO
circle one
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 08:04:59 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8274dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8275This is not changing the subject at all. Moving on to something additional is changing the subject.
Let's clarify what has been presented here, in the form of an unsupported conjecture, before moving off the point made regarding the hemispheres of the brain. If such points present a flawed framework why introduce further speculations? Thu, 05 Sep 2013 08:42:26 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8275dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8276"In our everyday, human stories, far away from science, we have a limited (if generous) capacity to entertain randomness—we are certainly not homo probabilisticus. Too many coincidences in a movie or book will render it unbelievable and unpalatable. We would think to ourselves, “that would never happen in real life!” This skews our stories. We tend to find or create story threads where there are none. While it can sometimes be useful to err on the side of causality, the fact remains that our tendency toward teleological explanations often oversteps the evidence."
http://nautil.us/issue/5/fame/homo-narrativus-and-the-trouble-with-fameThu, 05 Sep 2013 08:43:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8276Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8279I am a little confused. You want to discuss about the brain, as it applies to consciousness and a psychological theory of personality as if they were the same thing. The discussion is consciousness. If you want to discuss psychology start a new thread.
You have already indicated by your silence that you are not interested in reading any evidence of the extended mind. Such evidence might convince you that the extended mind is outside the head and brain.
Or we could all change our views and agree with you that all consciousness is a chemical and electrical activity of the brain and there is no such thing as the sence of being stared at and the extend mind. Perhaps this is you goal.
If this is your goal just let us know because it is obvious your not interested in discussing any scientific evidence except what you deem as important evidence to discuss. Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:00:09 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8279dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8280Stating that you are "confused" is one of the more cogent remarks you've made. Allow me to repeat this comment so that it does not go ignored:
This is an important point: while it is fine to speculate about brain function or offer opinions, submitting explanations about of how the brain functions must provide for an integrated system.
Claims such as "From early childhood learning is experiencial and abstract concepts are non existent in other words the child is right brain.." or "memory is not stored in the brain, just as the image of the TV is not stored in the TV set." need to be tied together in a comprehensive way or the commenters must change their thinking and adopt a framework with integrity. Enough research exists to explain away false concepts for those open to learning.
This is not changing the subject at all. Moving on to something additional is changing the subject.
Let's clarify what has been presented here, in the form of an unsupported conjecture, before moving off the point made regarding the hemispheres of the brain. If such points present a flawed framework why introduce further speculations?"
Is this clear enough? There is no point of continuing a discussion if with someone that doesn't understand basic neuroscience.
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 17:36:33 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8280Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8281"Is this clear enough? There is no point of continuing a discussion if with someone that doesn't understand basic neuroscience."
Yes we should discontinue this discussion because of ignorance on my part. I,unlike you, know very little about neuroscience.
Now we can get back to discussing consciousness.
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:34:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8281Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8282@dustproduction
When I joined the discussion here no one ask if I was a specialist in neuroscience or that the discussion here should be void of personal opinions. There was no rule that every statement or opinion needed to be backed up by hard research data. All of the threads here are personal opinions. The purpose of the discussion is to explore ideas.
It is your own standard that requires "scientific proof" on any subject or opinion discussed, however when "scientific proof" is offered or presented by someone other than yourself you refuse to read or discuss it.
No one here knows your opinion because your post are always questioning others opinions or you are posting the opinion of some writer not part of the discussion here.
Please do everyone reading here a favour and just post your opinion and allow others the same privilege.
For example you have made an opinion that homeopathy is "non sense" . That's good we know now your opinion. You don't have to prove your opinion to anyone. You don't have to have any scientific proof that homeopathy is non sense. That is just your opinion.
I,on the other hand, have the opinion that HOMEOPATHY is an effective form of consciousness effecting the physical body that promotes natural self healing. That is my opinion.
Perhaps someone else would like to express their opinion.
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 22:06:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8282bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8285Dusto, lighten up man you're all frowns...
I heard there is a town in northern europe where you can be arrested for smiling.
tanto rigor..tanto rigorFri, 06 Sep 2013 00:52:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8285bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8286I have some thoughts about the role of vibration.
Sheldrake's concept or morphic resonance provides the pattern on which matter can hang. And it seems Braden's ( The Divine Matrix) recounting of the phantom DNA effect shows that DNA recruits not only matter to build proteins but also photons. Sheldrake stated that he thinks the shape and personality of a person(I would add any creature) is not located in the brain or genes. I agree, and a plethora of evidence from NDE's, electronic voice phenomena, etc shows that even brain dead people are having experiences as you stated Billy G. It's likely the nature of this 'field' we refer to is holographic, Max Planck called it the quantum hologram. If you break a holographic plate the image is in the tiniest fragment. Which suggests that information from the field does not have and x,y,z co ordinate address in space but is encoded into every point perhaps with millions of overlays of different frequencies. This can explain telepathy and remote viewing and other so called psychic phenomena.
We know from Bruce Lipton's recounting in 'The biology of belief", scientists removed the nucleus from cells, the cell kept operating like nothing happened until it needed a blueprint to build replacement molecules, proteins etc. This means the genes don't do that much besides being a library of plans on how to build molecules of various kinds. In other words the genes are not the 'design' of a person. Just like bricks, steel and glass are not the design of a skyscraper. What is responsible for the design architecture? If a skyscraper design comes out of the mind of man, whose mind does the design of a person come out of? Seeing as a human is infinitely more complex than a building.
I'll include two vids here that may help for insights. The thread topic says animals must have minds too, and after seeing this vid you might agree that dolphins must have incredible minds. It shows them playing with vortex rings they created themselves. There is something very special about a toroidal circulation pattern that I am sure is very relevant to consciousness and to everything for that matter. The toroid seems to have an over unity efficiency which enables it to perpetuate even in a dissipative medium like water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbR9JcZNipY
The other vid is called "Cymatics bringing matter to life with sound." These incredible patterns must be related to the morphic resonance concept Sheldrake talks about and sound must be involved it seems. But we are probably dealing with sound frequencies that are too high to detect with instruments. But here it's easy to see the higher the frequency the more complex and intricate the patterns. Patterns form that show what could easily be the symmetry of a face or the markings on animal skins, the inside of a rockmelon, galactic swirls and blood flows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Io6lop3mk
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 03:43:20 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8286Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8288Here is a Hubble photo of a galaxy. It has that same swil, vortex or as you call it toroidal circulation pattern. This vortex pattern is now used to potenize homeopathic remedies instead of succession with the same effect.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2007-41-a-pdf.pdf
Here is an other use for the vortex. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1FA2H1HiL3o&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1FA2H1HiL3o
In your video it was clear that the sound created small vortices. An interesting area in which little is know.
I had just watched and listened to this one today before I read your post: http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=relmfu&v=yoj6FAarThQ
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:58:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8288dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8289A new study finds that mirror neurons may help our minds mirror more than just others' actions - they may also help us perceive the space around others' bodies from a first-person perspective.
"The new research revealed that visual events occurring near a person's own hand and those occurring near another's hand are represented by the same region of the frontal lobe (premotor cortex). In other words, the brain can estimate what happens near another person's hand because the neurons that are activated are the same as those that are active when something happens close to our own hand. It is possible that this shared representation of space could help individuals to interact more efficiently -- when shaking hands, for instance. It might also help us to understand intuitively when other people are at risk of getting hurt, for example when we see a friend about to be hit by a ball."
Read more here: http://bit.ly/17AEJwX
Original journal paper here: http://bit.ly/15CAv8i
For more on mental mirroring, check out my article for Scientific American magazine, "What's So Special About Mirror Neurons?" http://bit.ly/THWSq1
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:36:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8289dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8290opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
Science is not about opinion.
I am not here to opine, Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:40:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8290Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8292Science is about opinion. That is the beginning of investigation. An opinion or idea of how something should be or work. Many times the opinion or idea is a dead end other times the product is just short of spectacular.
Exploring ideas and opinions that main stream science considers "taboo" is what this discussion site is all about. For example:
Some have the idea and opinion that HOMEOPATHY is directly part of and an extension of consciousness. Others believe it is non sense. So perhaps someone will take the idea or opinion and do something about it.
We all know that pettiduster will search for some pseudo skeptic to say "yes it is non sense". While others will continue to use or get treatment from HOMEOPATHY because it works and they don't have to go to the IMF for a loan to get well.
Opinions count when it is your own.Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:55:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8292dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8294
Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.
Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:38:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8294dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8295These are the steps in the scientific method:
Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating previous evidence from other scientists, including experience. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[19]
Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.
Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:39:09 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8295dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8296There is also replication, external review, and data recoding and sharing.
The goal of a scientific inquiry is to obtain knowledge in the form of testable explanations that can predict the results of future experiments. This allows scientists to gain an understanding of reality, and later use that understanding to intervene in its causal mechanisms (such as to cure disease). The better an explanation is at making predictions, the more useful it is, and the more likely it is to be correct. The most successful explanations, which explain and make accurate predictions in a wide range of circumstances, are called scientific theories.
Those that are no a part of science malign the process because they do not understand it and instead embrace myth and magic to explain the unknown. Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:46:09 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8296Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8298I see that the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is having its "Brainstem" festival : http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:00:23 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8298dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8299Thoughtful cognitive neuroscientists such as Anna Abraham, Mark Beeman, Adam Bristol, Kalina Christoff, Andreas Fink, Jeremy Gray, Adam Green, Rex Jung, John Kounios, Hikaru Takeuchi, Oshin Vartanian, Darya Zabelina and others are on the forefront of investigating what actually happens in the brain during the creative process. And their findings are overturning conventional notions surrounding the neuroscience of creativity.
The latest findings from the real neuroscience of creativity suggest that the right brain/left brain distinction is not the right one when it comes to understanding how creativity is implemented in the brain.* Creativity does not involve a single brain region or single side of the brain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-barry-kaufman/the-real-neuroscience-of_b_3870582.htmlSat, 07 Sep 2013 08:21:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8299dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8300Great resource. This lecture uses chao and complexity theory to compare the the galaxy to the brain.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/lecture-series-presented-kpmg-sense-chaos-controlling-dynamic-networks-brain
Activity recorded from neurons in the brain often looks random or chaotic. How do we make sense of the world and produce precisely controlled responses when so much of the activity in our brains is chaotic? This talk will show how brain circuits can switch between chaotic and well-controlled patterns of activity, illustrating these points with computer demonstrations of network models. This talk will also discuss how chaotic activity may be useful for a healthy brain function and demonstrate what goes wrong when activity is insufficiently chaotic.Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:35:59 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8300Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8301I agree with you dustproduction. This is no place for those who ignore scientific data. no matter how convincing or factual it is they ignore it like it wasn't there.
This is nothing new. History is full of theories that did not fit in the "approved dogma" and how the persons putting forth such theories where mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed for their theories or new ideas such as the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.
It make one,question, are these people calling themselves scientist really scientist.
IONS is one place were new theories and ideas are not subject to scientific dogma. New ideas are not treated as myths or magic here. They are subjects of inquire, discussion and ideas.
For example certain pseudo scientist and pseudo skeptics consider Homeopathy as " non sense" and not part of the study of consciousness. This is reminiscent of those who would not look at the facts that the earth was not flat.
I am happy you brought this subject up dustproduction. ThanksSat, 07 Sep 2013 08:54:51 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8301dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8303Are both halves conscious? Which one is us?
Michael Gazzaniga has worked with split-brain patients since the 1960s.* He took advantage of the fact that our left and right eyes are 'wired up' to opposing brain hemispheres.
In one experiment, he showed different pictures to a patient's left and right eyes. For the right eye, he served up a chicken claw. For the left eye, he showed a snowy scene.
He then put a selection of new pictures in front of the patient and asked him to point to the one that best matched what he had just seen. The patient pointed his right hand to a chicken and his left hand to a shovel. This suggests that both sides of the brain are acting independently, taking in information and producing separate motor effects on 'their' side of the body.
The plot grows thicker. When asked to explain, the patient justified his actions saying “well obviously, the chicken claw goes with the chicken”. Then, seeing that his left hand was pointing to the shovel, he added “and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.”
The left hand isn't talking to the right...
I find this astounding. The right brain had made a conscious and sensible decision to point to the shovel because it had seen the snowy scene. But the left brain, rather than admitting confusion about why the right hand was pointing to the shovel, made up a story to make sense of what the body was doing.
In the majority of healthy, joined-up brains, the left-hand hemisphere dominates over our language skills. Gazzaniga talks of “the interpreter” that sits within the left brain and makes sense of what we do, verbalising it to make sense of the world. It’s fascinating to think that our verbalising consciousness (with which we are all very familiar) is not necessarily the consciousness driving our decisions. We may have two centres of consciousness, acting simultaneously.Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:48:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8303dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8304
Source: http://www.human-data.net/2013/09/the-brain-is-made-of-two-roughly.htmlSat, 07 Sep 2013 13:49:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8304dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8305 This paper presents a theoretical review of rapid eye movement sleep with a special focus on pontine-geniculate-occipital waves and what they might tell us about the functional anatomy of sleep and consciousness. In particular, we review established ideas about the nature and purpose of sleep in terms of proto-consciousness and free energy minimization. By combining these theoretical perspectives, we discover answers to some fundamental questions about sleep: for example, why is homeothermy suspended during sleep? Why is sleep necessary? Why are we not surprised by our dreams? What is the role of synaptic regression in sleep? The imperatives for sleep that emerge also allow us to speculate about the functional role of PGO waves and make some empirical predictions that can, in principle, be tested using recent advances in the modeling of electrophysiological data.
It is a shame that I cannot post the slides here so do visit the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hobson+friston+2012+sleepSat, 07 Sep 2013 14:02:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8305Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8310Dreams is an interesting part of consciousness. It is another body that is sometimes call the dreambody. Dreams to the dreambody are real. Dreaming has been studed since Greek phlosophy and still not much is known about it except almost everyone dreams. To some dreaming is not a real scientific study because all reports are anecdotal. People keep dream logs. A lot of EEG work has gone into studying dreams and one standout evidence is that REMs are not necessary for dreaming to occur and not all REMs are dreams.
Studying the brain activity has yielded little new evidence because this question is still unanswered: why do we dream?
Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:15:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8310bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8312Hi Billy G,
Thanks for the links to Jill Purse and sound healing. I bought her book"The Mystic Spiral" which was related to the hubble image you provided. It's so beautiful..and they are countless. I think I may try overtone singing it's incredible to hear the tones that make up the one sound like white light being made of different colours. The toroidal water power station in Switzerland was pretty interesting also.
I went for a walk in the city today and I saw a bill poster that read " The facts are everywhere but it's the 'why' that's hard to find". Why do we have dreams? I keep a dream log. Maybe all the characters are parts of ourselves in a play as our souls way of communicating in symbolic images to our conscious mind. But only if we record them over time maybe we can learn more about the patterns by applying a scientific and intuitive approach to all the motifs we see in them.
For example, one motif that repeats quite often for me is a military backdrop. I'm usually in the military and not fitting in and am looking for a way out.Sun, 08 Sep 2013 03:17:32 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8312dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8313How does one respond to such uninformed statements. This is indeed a challenge.
There is in fact a great deal that is know about sleep and dreaming, so when a commenter write that there isn't a much that is known, are we to read this to say that in fact the commenter is unaware of any research. This might be closer to the truth. So, why do the commenter make that close instead of making a definitive declaration that is so naive?
This is a very small sample of the research:
Sleep researchers in different disciplines disagree about how fully dreaming can be explained in terms of brain physiology. Debate has focused on whether REM sleep dreaming is qualitatively different from nonREM (NREM) sleep and waking. A review of psychophysiological studies shows clear quantitative differences between REM and NREM mentation and between REM and waking mentation. Recent neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies also differentiate REM, NREM, and waking in features with phenomenological implications. Both evidence and theory suggest that there are isomorphisms between the phenomenology and the physiology of dreams. We present a three-dimensional model with specific examples from normally and abnormally changing conscious states.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DCD608EE2BAAE59DD5946E6DF53A4305.journals?fromPage=online&aid=84263
http://www2.ucsc.edu/dreams/Library/domhoff_2011.html
http://www2.ucsc.edu/dreams/Library/domhoff_2010a.html
Each of this studies by Domhoff have a long list of reference material
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/maquet96.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/drm/6/2/147/
Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:27:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8313dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8314
This also counters the claim regarding REM sleep.
Stage 1: You are entering into light sleep. This stage is characterized by Non-rapid eye movements (NREM), muscle relaxation, lowered body temperature and slowed heart rate. The body is preparing to enter into deep sleep.
Stage 2: Also characterized by NREM, this stage is characterized by a further drop in body temperature and relaxation of the muscles. The body's immune system goes to work on repairing the day's damage. The endocrine glands secrete growth hormones, while blood is sent to the muscles to be reconditioned. In this stage, you are completely asleep.
Stage 3: Still in the NREM stage, this is an even deeper sleep. Your metabolic levels are extremely slow.
Stage 4: In this stage of sleep, your eyes move back and forth erratically as if watching something from underneath your eyelids. Referred to as REM sleep or delta sleep, this stage occurs at about 90-100 minutes after the onset of sleep. Your blood pressure rises, heart rate speeds up, respiration becomes erratic and brain activity increases. Your involuntary muscles also become paralyzed or immobilized. This stage is the most restorative part of sleep. Your mind is being revitalized and emotions is being fine tuned. The majority of your dreaming occurs in this stage. If you are awakened during this stage of sleep, you are more likely to remember your dreams.
These stages repeat themselves throughout the night as you sleep. As the cycle repeats, you will spend less time in stages 1 to 3 and more time dreaming in stage 4. In other words, it will be quicker and quicker for you to get to stage 4 each time the cycle repeats.Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:27:30 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8314dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8315 When I say that no discussion can occur I am referring to the level of discourse.
Unless others clearly identify what is unsupported opinion from theory or hypothesis, one is constantly of the defensive attempting to disprove statements that are baseless. This is not discussion at that point, it is needless debate. Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:31:59 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8315dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8316This commentary on "What is consciousness?" is worthy of consideration.
What is Consciousness?
Consciousness continues to be an ill-defined concept, so I shall start by discussing how the term is used in this special issue. As discussed in Overgaard and Overgaard (2010), there is an important distinction between level of consciousness and content of consciousness. Level of consciousness refers to a dimension that varies from coma at one extreme, through sleep and, at the other extreme, alert wakefulness. Philosophers call this creature consciousness since it applies to the whole creature (Rosenthal, 2009). Level of consciousness is of particular relevance to the studies of patients in persistent vegetative state discussed by Laureys and colleagues (Demertzi et al., 2011). However, most of the contributions to this special issue are concerned with the content of consciousness.
Alert wakefulness is characterized by consciousness of specific mental states. The states that we are aware of are the contents of consciousness. Philosophers call this state consciousness. This is somewhat confusing, given that, when people talk about altered states of consciousness, they are usually referring to different levels of consciousness rather than different contents of consciousness. So I will continue to use the terms level and contents of consciousness.
http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2013/09/chris-d-frith-what-brain-plasticity.html Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:47:09 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8316bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8320Nassim Haramein prefers the word 'Space' to the word 'consciousness' because everyone has a different definition of consciousness. There is a gulf he explains between those who want to look at bits as if the answer lay there and those who like to dwell on the infinite. The source of the spat between the spiritualist and the traditional scientist. Nassim is no ordinary scientist though.
This is well worth looking at .Has everything to do with this discussion. "sacred geometry and unified fields"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zc0ICPoqlM Mon, 09 Sep 2013 05:19:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8320dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8322
The question here is what questions science must answer and Nassin Haramein hasn't had any of his papers publish in credible science journals. A debate raged on between "bobathon" and Haramein so for balance and reference I will include it here.
"A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim's ideas, talks, or research? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether. Which of the following reasons sounds most plausible? Is it..
(a) because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?
(b) because scientists are incapable of seeing outside the box that they were trained to think in, and are too proud to accept radical suggestion from an outsider?
(c) because they haven't come across his ideas yet?"
(d) because anyone with an understanding of science can see that his claims and his methods are not scientific in any sense of the term, and that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about?
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html#res .Mon, 09 Sep 2013 06:52:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8322dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8323I will add this as well since it addresses the criticisms often raise about science:
"Followers of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and conspiracy theories think that academia and institutional knowledge is a sort of old boy’s club, where a cap and gown and a secret handshake get you “in the club,” and only knowledge that originates from within “the club” is taken seriously. The reality is very different.
You do not have to be a credentialed expert with a Ph.D. in physics to come up with a revolutionary new idea that totally redefines scientific truth. You could be a plumber and still come up with a revolutionary new idea that totally redefines scientific truth. However, whether you are a Ph.D. physicist or a plumber, the validity of your idea must be still be provable using the scientific method."
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/who-is-nassim-haramein/
This is what Mr. Haramein doesn’t seem to understand. The reason his theories don’t have any credibility is not because he is not a credentialed expert doing research at a traditional institution. The reason his theories don’t have any credibility is because they’re not verifiable or supportable according to the methods of physics, astronomy and ancient history. It’s the methods that matter. Scientific inquiry and historical analysis have been built up over centuries, even millennia. Democritus was doing science in Thrace in the 4th century B.C., and Thucydides was researching history at about the same time. Guess what? The methods that Democritus used all those centuries ago are still sound by today’s scientific standards (though of course technology is much different), and the methods that Thucydides used to describe the Peloponnesian War are still recognized as hallmarks of historical scholarship today. This is not to say that science or history haven’t advanced since the time of the ancient Greeks; clearly they have. But our process of asking questions and seeking answers, of judging hypothesis based on verifiable facts, and of testing the evidence for its reliability are remarkably similar to the processes that experts have been using for centuries to get at the truth of various problems.Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:08:00 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8323dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8324In his most recent book, Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist (2012), Koch admits his openness to non-materialist explanations of consciousness, including the possibility that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe. In this interview from The Atlantic, he goes a little further:
I was surprised to see your book invoke Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest and paleontologist who believed the universe is becoming more conscious as it gets more complex. Most scientists write off Teilhard as a religious apologist.
Koch: Most scientists don't even know about him. He had this idea about evolution where he argued that from very simple micro molecules to single cell organisms to multi-cell organisms to simple animals to complex animals to us is the emergence of complexity. He observed that the universe was getting more and more complex, and he postulated this would continue. Essentially, he postulated something like the Internet. He called it the "noosphere" -- the sphere of knowledge that covers the entire planet and is heavily interconnected. He died in 1955, long before any of this emerged, and he postulated that human society would evolve into a very complicated entity that would become self-conscious. He thought this would happen on other planets and throughout the entire universe, and the universe in some weird state would become self-conscious. It's all totally speculative, but I do like some of these ideas. I see a universe that's conducive to the formation of stable molecules and to life. And I do believe complexity is associated with consciousness. Therefore, we seem to live in a universe that's particularly conducive to the emergence of consciousness. That's why I call myself a "romantic reductionist."Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:54:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8324bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8330None of your 'knowledge 'can cancel my feelings. And I would suggest you've created a mask for your deepest fears of being worthless. And that mask, that you have created is 'MR Knowledgable.' Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:29:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8330dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8331What is the line about standing on the shoulders of giants?
"The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias according to which better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people. The term was coined by Robin Hogarth.
In one experiment, one group of subjects "tapped" a well-known song on a table while another listened and tried to identify the song. Some "tappers" described a rich sensory experience in their minds as they tapped out the melody. Tappers on average estimated that 50% of listeners would identify the specific tune; in reality only 2.5% of listeners could identify the song.
Related to this finding is the phenomenon experienced by players of charades: The actor may find it frustratingly hard to believe that his or her teammates keep failing to guess the secret phrase, known only to the actor, conveyed by pantomime."
Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:28:25 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8331bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8333The floors yours Dusto, trumpet away in your imaginary talent quest.Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:59:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8333dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8336An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:13:17 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8336Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8337One question : What is a "credible science journals"?Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:58:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8337dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8343In a phrase, "peer review." Typically you'd look at the journal's impact factor to figure out whether scientists or researchers take it seriously.
A journal with a high impact factor means the papers published in that journal are often cited in other journals. A paper that appears is "Nature" has a citation factor of 31.Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:55:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8343Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8348" a high impact factor means the papers published in that journal are often cited in other journals."
This is what is commonly called the "herd behaviour". "If everyone else is doing it we will too." Not too scientific.Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:20:14 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8348dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8350Hardly.Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:02:05 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8350dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8352There are 5 episodes in this PBS series "The Secret Life of the Brain."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/index.htmlWed, 11 Sep 2013 06:30:31 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8352bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8356Mike Adams has a sister site DivinityNow.com
Presentation here describes some failings of conventional science. How the reductionist view is flawed and destructive. He tears Steven Hawkings 'The Grand Design' apart showing ultimately how disfigured the purely rational approach is. Science's job is really to find the truth of situations. The reason someone like Nassim is generally regarded as an outsider is because the alumni of conventional science have been lying to themselves for generations and instead of taking their cues from observations of natural systems they have based their life's work on the assumptions of others before them. There is a uniform impairment in conventional science which stems from an all pervasive disconnection from nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thM3SHCXP0o
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 03:57:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8356dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8357 Commenters here at IONS, seek to engage in a good shoving match over their mythologies and that is why people continue to return to comment on this thread. Speaking from the "heart" leaves people with little to say.
Re" Mike Adams, I would ask the following question if this thread was about him instead of consciousness, "Why should anyone care about what Mike Adams thinks or says?" The point I raised in the past regarding Adams was why you were referencing him and not the source?
In a word, Adams= alt. and it appears that there is no shortage of individuals that are seeking out something alternative to believe in, while they wail against the great conspiracy of 'convention', and especially now, that the invention of a god has worn thin.
Mike Adams: "One such skeptic accused me of being a quack because he said that I believe “water is magical.” Was that supposed to be an insult? I do think water is magical!
I think pregnancy is magical. Human consciousness is magical. Plant life is magical. And water is at the very top of the list of magical substances with amazing, miraculous properties, many of which have yet to be discovered."
Brains are information processing devices. When an information processing device introspects, that is to say, sorts and assesses internal data, and on that basis arrives at the conclusion that it has a magical, non-physically-explainable property, the most straightforward scientific question is not: "How did it produce magic?" but instead: "How, and for what use, does it construct that description of itself?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-graziano/consciousness-and-the-una_b_3844493.html
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:43:02 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8357dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8358
There are three positions to assume in watching a magic trick. The first is being in the position of believe that magic is real. Children often assume this position. Adults may understand that magic is a trick, but they cannot detect how the trick is accomplished, so they sit back, enjoy the illusion and never express that the magic is just deception. The third position is that of the magician. He understands the how the deception is created within the subjective CONSCIOUSNESS of the mind.
Michael Graziano writes,
"In the attention schema theory, awareness is a description, one might say a model or a simulation, constructed by specialized systems in the brain. It is a cartoonish, somewhat inaccurate model of something real. The real item is attention. Attention is a data-handling trick. Incoming signals compete, some signals win the competition, and as a result the processing power of the brain is focused on those select, winning signals. Attention is a way of focusing the computing resources. "Awareness, in the theory, is the brain's own fuzzy description of attention. A brain attends to thing X; the brain constructs the description, "I am aware of thing X." By having some rough knowledge about its own attention, the brain can predict and partially control its own functioning. One of the key lines of evidence is that awareness and attention are closely related and yet are not the same thing. They can be separated. Like all models constructed by the brain, this one can slip and become inaccurate in certain threshold circumstances. Awareness is not attention; it is the brain's schematic and somewhat error-prone model of attention."
If you do not believe this or understand this, see this video on the neuroscience or MAGIC.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/illusion-chasers/2013/09/09/brainfacts-neuromagic/
Regarding consciousness, if it is fallible how is it spiritual? Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:58:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8358Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8362"Brains are information processing devices."
The mechanistic view point of the body including the brain leaves one with the question: If it were possible to successfully transplant a brain from one person to another would the mind transfer as well? If we could transplant Mike Adams brain into dustproductions head would dustproduction still be a reductionist pseudo skeptic or would the word magic be a word the would mean "wonderfully fantastic creation" in stead of James Randi magic.Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:27:14 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8362dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8365A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.[11] As a result, a number of claims are considered "pseudoscience" if they are found to improperly apply or ignore the fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Scientific skepticism may discard beliefs pertaining to things outside perceivable observation and thus outside the realm of systematic, empirical falsifiability/testability.
Also see
Homeopathic Medicine
Cold Reading
New Age Medicine
Magnet Therapy
Astrology
Therapeutic touch
Parapsychology
Mediums
CreationismThu, 12 Sep 2013 13:46:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8365Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8369Oh yes "Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method."
However some, not all, calling themselves scientist, just simple ignore what they don't want to find out about:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/pdf/JCSpaper1.pdf
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/pdf/JCSpaper2.pdf
It is quite easy to call something pseudo scientice before reading any evidence.
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:20:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8369dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8377It is not the job of every scientist to prove Sheldrake right. Sheldrake has no proof and as a scientist he can provide his own, if and when his THEORY(s) can be supported. There are many theory that can be supported and many ignore the proof over BELIEF.
To bring this back to CONSCIOUSNESS, our topic here. I read reading one of my favorite scientist, Daniel Kahneman, who identifies something that is repeated here over and over again, "cognitive bias." I won't go off on a discussion about it, we all know what it is. I will instead focus on an associated affect that occurs in the human mind, "the illusion of validity."
When faced with evidence or statistics to support a certain proposition, an individual will continue to believe what has been show to be false. Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:07:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8377Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8381You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drankThu, 12 Sep 2013 23:39:59 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8381dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8382No, its not that at all. It is more like the idea that we pretend to be rational agents in these discussions but in fact we are psychologically bias toward false BELIEF in the reliability of our own judgements.
Consistent patterns may be observed when input variables are highly redundant or correlated, which may increase subjective confidence. However, a number of highly correlated inputs should not increase confidence much more than only one of the inputs; instead higher confidence should be merited when a number of highly independent inputs show a consistent pattern.
The 'illusion of validity' may be caused in part by confirmation bias and/or the representativeness heuristic and could in turn cause the overconfidence effectFri, 13 Sep 2013 07:42:22 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8382bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8383Why are you here?Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:36:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8383dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8384Here? On this thread? To discuss the questions science must answer regarding consciousness.Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:23:27 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8384bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8385What do you value most in life? Sat, 14 Sep 2013 02:58:01 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8385RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8387"Speaking from the heart leaves people with little to say?"
Quite the contrary!
Speaking from your heart, in ONLY your own words, forces you to use the areas of your brain that are otherwise constantly oppressed, and repressed, allowing you to think and feel and behave in a far more highly evolved manner of processing, stepping you out of the boundaries of convention and its "reason-ing," to return you to reflective Awareness, which is precisely what is needed if you want genuine Universal Answers!
"You must go alone! You must leave all your weapons behind!" (NES) It will be very dangerous!
It takes a lot of courage to own your own expressions. It untangles all your tangled webs, exposing your own truths, to yourself, joy, pain and all, which is the "ONLY" way to realize the reflective Universal Truths! With nothing to hide behind, and "ONLY" Nothing, the truth reveals itself!
Everything you're looking for has been right there all along, but until you allow yourself to relinquish control, that magnificent side of yourself, that "genus" of processing that exposes the true, original "genius" within, it'll always only be "he said, she said!"Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:26:40 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8387dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8388The previous comment asks a personal question that might be posed to all of us here. If anyone cares to start a thread with that questions we can all reply to it there.
Regarding consciousness, and the questions that science must answer about it, we might seek to review the ideas of those that who are contributing to sciences understanding of consciousness. Despite what many think, that is no conspiracy on the part of the science establishment to promote a certain understanding, and in fact, there is only agreement on a few things.
"Today I'd like to go back to a topic that leaves most people perplexed, me included: the nature of consciousness and how it "emerges" in our brains. I wrote about this a few months ago, promising to get back to it. At this point, no scientist or philosopher in the world knows how to answer it. If you think you know the answer, you probably don't understand the question:
Are you all matter?
Or, let's phrase it in a different way, a little less controversial and more amenable to a scientific discussion: how does the brain, a network of some 90 billion neurons, generate the subjective experience you have of being you?"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/08/06/209501063/the-nature-of-consciousness-a-question-without-an-answerSat, 14 Sep 2013 08:19:55 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8388bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8390What do you want from us?Sun, 15 Sep 2013 03:08:16 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8390dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8392Re" "Us"
Who is "us?"
Re: "forces you to use the areas of your brain that are otherwise constantly oppressed, and repressed"
What part(s) would that be? It seems to me that its is not a matter of brain parts as much as it is a matter of thoughts, the information that the neural networks produce. Much of this is inputted in development; we speak the language that we do, we response to our name, and so for. So where would novelty arise from? We cannot use what isn't in the toolbox, so to speak. "Doing the work" as you like to say, is a matter of opening up to the other tools available to us, but the does not make us proficient or skilled in the use of the tool.
Like it or not the brain is evolved in a major way. We are not a conscious spirit directing a physical body. We are the body and the brain, producing a limited physical conscious experience.
Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:35:32 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8392dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8393When it comes to neuroscience, a relatively new field of science, certain things have been already established in term of how the brain works. This thread is about the questions science most answer about consciousness, and there are many, but few here,if any, seem to willing to discuss the framework of what we already know. IONS conforms to what many here call 'mainstream' science in many ways even thought it maintains its know agenda.
INOS states, "We conduct basic science and laboratory research on mind-matter interactions, social science investigations of transformational experiences and practices and their impact on individual and collective wellness, and clinical and applied studies testing the real-world effectiveness of consciousness-based interventions."
This research does not ignore the biological foundation of basis science or the principles of the scientific method. The IONS lab "houses a broad array of instrumentation, ranging from psychophysiological monitors of autonomic and central nervous system activity (e.g., electrocardiogram, heart rate, skin conductance, electrogastrogram, respiration, blood flow, 32 channel EEG)." These are all biological measure.
In one project IONS held a conference which was intended to encourage a dialogue between a distinguished group of mainstream scientists and rigorous researchers working at the frontiers of science.
Some have questioned my purpose on in these discussions. I might well ask the same thing of those who are here, conducting what amounts to a personal agenda that is by in large antiscience in every way.
Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:20:23 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8393bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8394What did you learn in 277 posts?Sun, 15 Sep 2013 22:52:52 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8394dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8395@bestearth
If you would like me to answer your you in turn must also answer mine. This is how we discuss. Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:53:43 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8395dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8396edited*
If you would like me to answer your question you in turn must also answer mine. This is how we discuss.Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:54:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8396RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8397Dust,
You are fighting for dear life on behalf of conventional science and its methodologies, reasoning within the boundaries of convention.
Problem is...conventional science is seriously misguided in soooo many ways, and if you would "do the work" required of genuine Consciousness, you would realize that.
"Doing that work" evolves you OUT of conventional reasoning, forcing you to actually EXPERIENCE the *higher Universal Processes" for yourself, and in such a profound and consistent way that there is no escaping the TRUTH of those *higher processes* once there.
Sticking electrodes on people's brains, while getting them to anticipate flash cards or another person's thoughts from another room, or whatever, is SO MISGUIDED, for instance, that it'll take centuries or more for those "scientists" to learn where they've gone wrong, let alone find their answers, because they don't have a clue what it REALLY IS that they are looking for, so they also don't have a clue where to begin to try to measure it! Instead of wasting billions in research monies and centuries, getting no where, if they would bother to "do the work" required of becoming Conscious first, they would not only realize what they are looking for, and how to ACTUALLY measure it, but they would also already have their answers!
Going around and around and around and around in conventional reasoning is only going to get you conventional (misguided) answers, because conventional rules of reasoning are only (and very conveniently) in place to protect...convention!
Likewise, conventional science only uses methodologies that support conventional science. It has inadvertently trapped itself within itself, and can't see that it has done that. Example: Several years ago, I reported an imminent event, actually giving the Universal Physics behind my detection in those physics that thousands of people were going to be killed, in a very specific, and very detailed, planetary devastation. The response? "We don't employ that technology." Thousands of people died in the exact details I had tried to warn about. Geologists are so busy focusing on their gadgets they stick in the ground, etc., that the physics lightyears beyond those, in many ways, primitive gadgets of theirs are totally overlooked and, if brought to their attention, totally dismissed! They refuse to "do the work" required to reason themselves out of their misperceptions.
The primary reason people won't allow themselves to "do the work" (which, if they'd actually commit themselves to, would be like winning the biggest "knowledge" and "spirituality" lottery of all!), is because they believe themselves unworthy of EVER having any REAL Answers, which they project onto everyone else, including a Consciousness teacher, and go back to where they believe their only power (and intrigue) could ever possibly be found!
Do you really want the fight, more than the Answers?
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:26:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8397RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8398If you only are interested in discussing the (conventionally-defined "physical" flesh) within the brain, I suspect you would only be talking to yourself on these mbs until someone else shows up with that same need. The nature of Noetic Sciences itself attracts people who think "out of the box," but you keep trying to force them back into that conventional box! If the very few people here go away, staying out of this thread, you're gonna get kind of lonely in here!
By the way, much of my formal education, and passion, is "brain science." I was officially and repeatedly assessed/tested/diagnosed, etc., as "functioning beyond the doctoral level" just starting out as an undergrad, because of my superConsciousness. The dept. heads actually had to go around to my profs to help them realize that I was "far more highly evolved," and not maliciously trying to disrupt my classes or out-smart them. I was told that it takes most Ph.Ds and also MDs, including neurologists, many years into their post-doctoral work before they even begin to become aware of what I am (and was at the time) already fluent in. I then found that out personally when, in the 1980s, neurologists were trying to study me, and they genuinely had no clue what superConsciousness was, let alone how my brain was so mathematical and multidimensional, etc., and couldn't hear me or process what I was telling them. None of their gadgets, including x-ray, MRI, etc...showed a thing!
Kept trying to tell them it was *Empty* in there! :DMon, 16 Sep 2013 00:29:00 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8398dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8402These are excellent comments posted by ROS and I will compose a thought reply to them. But first a question for ROS:
There are many references to the term "superConsciousness." Your spelling of it is unique, small s capital C. Are you referencing a specific source for this term or is it an original term that you have created? Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:50:07 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8402dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8403"How can our material brain give rise to subjective experience?"
That is what this thread is about, first and foremost. This is the conscious experience that science seek to explore.
We are physical beings, our functionality is based on this material existence, and it would appear, that we have biologically evolved to have more of a subjective experience than any other animal on the planet. How does it occur, is a relevant question that is worthy of investigation.
Suggesting that we need to "EXPERIENCE the 'higher Universal Processes'" does not provide answers for why the human conscious experience contains the evolved adaptions that provides for the ability to imagine a higher EXPERIENCE, or to seek it, let alone identify how the human brain acts as an obstacle for even comprehending what 'higher Universal Processes' entails.
Therefore, as I have pointed out already, we are talking about two different concepts that share the same name, "consciousness." It is suggested that science needs to "becoming Conscious first." But this thread is about the neuroscience variety of conscious experience, the type that MAY take science "centuries" to understand. John Searle provides a simple definition,
People always say consciousness is very hard to define. I think it's rather easy to define if you're not trying to give a scientific definition. We're not ready for a scientific definition, but here's a common-sense definition. Consciousness consists of all those states of feeling or sentience or awareness. It begins in the morning when you wake up from a dreamless sleep, and it goes on all day until you fall asleep or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this definition.
Now, that's the common-sense definition. That's our target. If you're not talking about that, you're not talking about consciousness."
This is the focus here. It is that simple, and yet people seem UNABLE to have this conversation.
Science has unraveled a great deal in the short time that it has focused on the problem.
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:47:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8403dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8404 Attention doesn't get the...."attention" it deserves.
Attention Schema Theory provides "One Possible Scientific Account of Consciousness..."
"About half a billion years ago, nervous systems evolved an ability to enhance the most pressing of incoming signals. Gradually, this ability to focus on selected signals came under top-down control and became what is now called attention.
In control theory, if a brain is to control something, it should have an internal model of the thing to be controlled. According to the "attention schema theory", to effectively deploy its own attentional focus, the brain needed a constantly updated simulation or model of attention. Otherwise the brain would not possess explicit knowledge about its changing state of attention. This model of attention was schematic and lacking in detail. Instead of attributing to the self a complex enhancement of neuronal signals, the model attributed to the self an experience of X -- the property of being conscious of something. In this theory, a brain attributes to itself "I am currently aware of X," because that attribution helps keep track of the ever-changing state of attention. Just as the brain can direct attention to external signals or to internal signals, that model of attention can attribute to the self a consciousness of external events or of internal events."
One can read more about it here at the website for Michael Graziano's lab at Princeton University.
http://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.html
Graziano's new book "Consciousness and the Social Brain" was described by none other than Patricia S. Churchland, PhD, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego , in this terms:
"Theories of consciousness are a dime a dozen. This one is different. Here is what makes Graziano's central idea distinctive: it makes sense - good scientific and logical sense. It fits with what we know about brain anatomy and physiology."Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:56:35 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8404bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8405Who are you?Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:47:24 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8405dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8410Since the focus here is on consciousness why does that matter?
IONS allows for anonymity in there guidelines in part no doubt so that the discussion does not become about the individual commenters but rather the content of their comments Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:31:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8410dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8416This is a great resource that explores many aspects of the problem of consciousness from the perceptive of neuroscience, including an historical perspective.
Consciousness Studies
"Consciousness Studies is a featured book on Wikibooks because it contains substantial content, it is well-formatted, and the Wikibooks community has decided to feature it on the main page or in other places."
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_StudiesTue, 17 Sep 2013 15:40:51 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8416bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8419The simpler questions are harder to answer it seems.Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:41:38 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8419dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8421@bestearth
Your questions are off topic.
This is not about me.
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:52:46 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8421dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8422Scholars theorize that human imagination requires a widespread neural network in the brain, but evidence for such a "mental workspace" has been difficult to produce with techniques that mainly study brain activity in isolation.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/dc-drd091313.php
The network closely resembles the "mental workspace" that scholars have theorized might be responsible for much of human conscious experience and for the flexible cognitive abilities that humans have evolved.
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:55:13 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8422bestearthhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8424If anyone is out of alignment with the spirit of ions its you. It seems there's people observing who would like to see you go. That's obvious but they avoid confrontation directly because they are too polite. You are not here to discuss anything. You are here to dismiss. And your attempts to trash the work of scientists like Braden, Haramein etc makes it obvious that you have an axe to grind and have no genuine interest in the work of ions. Your intentions are dishonourable, people can feel it and it's not their imagination.
So I'll just say it clear and straight...Dustproduction.....get lost. Just Go.Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:40:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8424dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8425This thread has close to 300 comments and most of the comments that I have posted quote research by noted researchers into science's exploration of consciousness. Others here would actually benefit from being aware of this research if they were more opening to human biology, and less interested in resorting to "argumentum ad hominem."
On a personal note there are threads I never comment on. Why do others comment here if they have no intention of discussing the questions science must answer about consciousness?
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:05:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8425RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8426Enlightenment/Consciousness DOES answer/Answer the questions you are exploring, Dust, because it's the fluency of the true Universal Physics processes, which apply to absolutely everything, everybody, everywhere, inescapably, but until you allow yourself to *go there,* you are never going to *realize* that, let alone have your answers/Answers!
Consciousness reveals answers/Answers to the intricacies that quantum and theoretical physicists are searching for, but until they evolve enough to *realize* that, they are always going to be left with their conventionally-paced struggle.
I hear and see what you are trying to do here, and your articles are interesting, and since this thread isn't going the way you personally want and need it to go, wouldn't it make sense to end your struggle by creating your very own new thread for ONLY the posting of your articles and ONLY a conventional discussion of those articles? Everybody here can just very genuinely respect your very specific choice and intention, and stay out of your personal need thread, which, quite frankly, is the best way of all to express to you what they have been trying to say to you. In other words, you may find yourself posting away in your thread, all alone, for a long time, all by yourself (trust me, it happens to me allll the time!), until someone shows up who likewise is interested in ONLY your way of responding to your articles, and posting their own in return, but the bottom line is that you'd be following your own heart.
Years ago, a beloved professor (who scolded the heck outta me for "selfishly" keeping my superConsciousness to myself, at a time when I just wanted to be liked and have friends, early college days), said "Get rid of the toxins, to make room for the healthy people you NEED!"
If you perceive the folks here as "toxins" to your agenda, who are sabotaging what and where you feel you NEED to be right now, then you need to take responsibility for your own interests by creating your own thread to specifically serve your chosen purpose, your definition of the conversation, on only your terms!
Otherwise, you're just going around and around with the fight, never accomplishing the discussion of your articles, under ONLY your terms!Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:17:36 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8426dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8428@ROS,
You asked, "Do you really want the fight, more than the Answers?" Absolutely not. But I believe I have continued to seek discussion, to define the difference between a foundation that can be built on, and the alternatives, where there is no foundations or frameworks, and only a dogma of BELIEF. On this thread I've continued to put great effort into ignoring the ad hominem comments and distraction, that even you are being subjected to now.
I participate in other discussions on consciousness in other forums, and this is the only forum where I've experienced a lack of dedication on the part of its commenters to the topics and the forums mission.
In terms of "collective consciousness" there is an element here that exemplifies the controlling, unaccepting, unawakened energy that I see as the real obstacle to change. So, I will continue in this thread to share my "truth" with the promise that remaining positive and sincere will provide answers. Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:38:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8428RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8429People are coming from the only place they know how. Rarely do folks engage in a conversation in which they struggle so hard to be heard, without bringing forth the best they have to offer, in the moment.
Therefore, it's better to go into their world, into those places with them, and guide them further, than to stand your ground from a place they can't process or identify with!
This applies to everybody in this thread, so I'm not trying to necessarily take sides. I am simply suggesting that this thread has long ago lost being about rigid conventional neurology or physiological psychology, to rather become a battle of those brains, in action. If you are fighting for conventional application, as opposed to a broader application of the subject, you, yourself, have lost the generalization of the thread, and its location.
Again, you have to remember where you are! This is not a hard core neurology board, and participants are primarily those who "think out of the box!" Either you welcome that reality, or accept the struggle you choose for yourself.Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:33:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8429dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8441
It would seem that boundaries are applicable. Many of the newer thread define the do's and don't.
This thread is about the conscience experience we all share, as it is being investigated by science. All are welcome to discussion this the questions science needs to answer, as well as the evidence it continues to uncover about the mind, brain and self, as it applies to consciousness.
I subscribe to the idea that consciousness is a biological process and an emergent property of the brain.
The brain produces mind and a sense of self.
Consciousness has evolved in other animals into the current state we find it in humans.
The brain-body-mind-self can be described as a complex adaptive system.
It can and is suggested that 'consciousness' is something else. This discussion is not about that type of consciousness.
This is a great resource that explores many aspects of the problem of consciousness from the perceptive of neuroscience, including an historical perspective.
Consciousness Studies
"Consciousness Studies is a featured book on Wikibooks because it contains substantial content, it is well-formatted, and the Wikibooks community has decided to feature it on the main page or in other places."
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_Studies
Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:33:50 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8441dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8446Memories and the recall of memory play an important role in consciousness; experiences become our memories, and future experience are shaped in part by our memories of the past experiences.
'Where' and 'how' memories are encoded in a nervous system is one of the most challenging questions in biological research. The formation and recall of associative memories is essential for an independent life. The hippocampus has long been considered a centre in the brain for the long-term storage of spatial associations. Now, Mazahir T. Hasan at the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research and José Maria Delgado-Garcìa at the University Pablo de Olavide of Seville, Spain, were able to provide first experimental evidence that a specific form of memory associations is encoded in the cerebral cortex and is not localized in the hippocampus as described in most neuroscience textbooks. The new study is a game changer since it strongly suggests that the motor cortical circuits itself, and not the hippocampus, is used as memory storage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130827091629.htm?utm_content=buffer6dfcc&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer#!
"We now think that the hippocampus provides the necessary environmental cues, which are transmitted to the cortex where learning-dependent associations take place. Memories are thus stored at various sites in the cerebral cortex on a long-term basis," explains Hasan.
The findings of Hasan and Delgado-Garcìa thus represent a paradigm-shift in memory research as they make clear that the cerebral cortex is the brain region where memory associations are linked and stored -- not the hippocampus. Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:17:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8446Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8447"Why do others comment here if they have no intention of discussing the questions science must answer about consciousness?"
I have been giving your equus africanus asinus a rest since I cause it so much pain.
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:11:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8447RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8456In Universal Physics, you can so easily see that the brain co-manifested with all else, in a "dependent origination." It's a reflection of Universal Truth, and what sentients do with that Truth.
So to persist in insisting that it all began with the brain is to inadvertently reveal a lack of Universal Awareness.
With Awakening, convention's perception of the "physical" is completely redefined.
Rigidly holding onto only convention and conventional scientific rules of reasoning, the most you can hope for are answers confined to...more convention! That's kind of like winning the lottery but you can't cash the check!
This is where conventional science has gotten itself so stuck, and why it is running into its disdained "philosophy." It's trying to conduct itself within a misperceived framework that has nothing to do with the real Universal reality. It doesn't LIKE that real reality, so it chooses its own, but its answers will NEVER be the true answers. For the most part, it doesn't seem to care, conveniently enough, because it sustains the scientists in their career status/egos/reputation/tenure, etc., but then they apply their mistaken, incomplete "answers" to all other areas of science, and what a tangled web they weave from there. But even that seems a lesser fate than accepting the true Universal Process they just are not ready for.Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:09:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8456dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8468Whether science has it right or not there is still the physical biological components that need to be considered.
There is a "how" to the why, is this continues to be ignored. I believe it is ignore because it is a foreign language that others refuse to learn.
All the protests against science are from those with a folk understanding of the world, that scream "speak english." when the conversation is too detailed.Fri, 20 Sep 2013 05:50:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8468RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8470Biology is also a matter/"matter" of dependent origination.
Language is completely other than what you assume.
Is it that they can't speak your language, or that you can't speak theirs?
Again, you persist in trying to hold a conversation with people by punishing away their every effort. You can't FORCE people to suddenly be conventional biologists, anymore than you can claim that conventional biology has all the answers!
Unless you create a thread for conventional biologists exclusively, and sit there waiting for them to show up, you'd better start figuring out how to communicate WITH people, because otherwise you're just presenting yourself as very one dimensional, closed to everything but your narrow microscope. Whether you're a paramecium, an amoeba, the parts of a microscope or the eyeball gazing into an eye piece, there is no escaping the Universal Physics Process.
While geologists, for instance, persist in sticking gadgets in the ground, hoping for a "five-second warning" so they can proficiently yell "RUUUUUN!!!!," Universal Physics reveal earthquakes months or more in advance, in incredible detail, in very teachable, measurable physics. So it's a "matter" of learning how to process that "matter" from a ...far more highly evolved... place and definition than anything convention has to offer.
You seem to think everything but the conventionally "physical" is all conjecture and guesswork that can NEVER be proved, but that's only because you haven't "done the work" required of the Answers!Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:33:05 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8470dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8471I would ask why no one respect voundaries, but I already know the answer to this; people are heavily invested in their personal narrative.
repeating:
It would seem that boundaries are applicable. Many of the newer thread define the do's and don't. (I respect the fro the "from the heart" thread. Show the same respect here.
This thread is about the conscience experience we all share, as it is being investigated by science. All are welcome to discussion this the questions science needs to answer, as well as the evidence it continues to uncover about the mind, brain and self, as it applies to consciousness.
Let's stop wasting other time and focus on discussion how the body creates a conscious experience. or try another thread to comment on. Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:22:10 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8471dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8476Why has no one offered up this research?
http://www.livescience.com/39812-strange-consciousness-state-in-surgery.htmlFri, 20 Sep 2013 18:49:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8476Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8480"Pandit said. "It is very difficult to design a monitor, to monitor something you don't have a model for."
What this means is that medical doctors along with a lot of other people don't know what consciousness is nor how to monitor what they don't know.
They are trying to find a way to monitor consciousness during surgery. That's because the anaesthesiologist wants to study his portfolio report( or some other unimportant thing) without interruption from his patient waking up. It's pretty boring sitting there waiting for the surgeon to finish his work.
It has been know for a long time that patients wake up during surgery and later repeat the jokes the doctors told or the slanderous thinks said about the patient.
What is more interesting is discussing the "dream body" and if we can learn to travel around where we want in the dream body.Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:20:03 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8480dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8487Pandit dubbed this state 'dysanaesthesia.'
The patients are under "anesthetized" and "fully unconscious."
There is another bit of research that was recently released that loks at activity in the brain during comma. I post it here so that others will be aware of it, in comparison to the research by Pandit.
Scientific investigation of this type might someday lead to explanation for the phenomena others assign to consciousness. This is why I continually advocate for more scientific investigation of consciousness, not less, because it will at some point remove the veil of mystery regarding human consciousness whatever exists behind it.
Sat, 21 Sep 2013 08:51:32 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8487dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8488Coma research: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075257?goback=%2Egde_3357123_member_275206250#%21Sat, 21 Sep 2013 08:52:30 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8488Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8493Traveling around in our dream body is called astral projection. Many people say that they travel this way. Does anyone here do this type of travel?Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:37:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8493dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8500Forget about anyone else, do you?Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:42:21 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8500RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8510My threads in the context of "only" are intended to try to help folks *focus* themselves toward a far more direct path to Awakening. Without guidance toward that direct path, it truly will take people many lifetimes to get there, and scientists centuries or more to find their Answers. The Nature of the Universal Physics themselves ...require... that *focus.*
What I have tried to suggest in this thread is that studying the brain, or anything else, confined to the boundaries of unconscious CONVENTION and its rules of reasoning and definition of "physical," without taking into consideration such realities as dependent (reflective) origination, etc., which you keep fighting off, will only get you more unconscious convention, NEVER true Universal Answers.
When the conversation is about consciousness (on any level), and the brain, you have to include a broader scope of inquisition. Otherwise, there's no point in having the discussion at all!
If you can lay down your rigidity long enough to let other people contribute to the conversation, you would realize the wealth of opportunities here to see that "consciousness" you are looking for in the brain, in action, on all levels! You would learn how time and space contribute to neurophysiology, how multidimensionality and parallel universes of mathematics likewise determine the brain's physiology.
But if you persist upon unconscious convention...Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:21:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8510dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8512The question is clearly defined of be about biological approachs to understanding consciousness. All are welcome to explore the biological aspects of how the conscious experience is emergent in the body.
Its just that simply.
"Consciousness depends primarily on a specific network of regions in the cortex (the wrinkled surface of the brain) and the thalamus (a walnut-sized structure buried deep in the interior). Some of these regions are important for determining the level of consciousness (the difference between waking and dreamless sleep) while others are involved in shaping conscious content (the specific qualities of any given experience).
Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:43:55 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8512Jim Centihttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8515I would like to add to the Billgreenjeans and Dustproduction comments.
A fundamental purpose of IONS science is to prove that consciousness is not confined within individual brains.
This is the reason for the IONS research into ESP experiences such as telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance etc.
Adequate evidence has been published proving the existence of ESP, but many devotees of scientific materialism refuse to view this evidence for several reasons.
I refer to them as devotees and not scientists because one of the reasons they refuse to review evidence for ESP is because it disproves their FAITH that consciousness exists in individual brains. If ESP is real, it is illogical and irrational to believe that consciousness is confined within individual brains.
Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:22:29 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8515RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8520Biology is likewise subject to dependent (reflective) origination.
Unconscious convention naïvely assumes that everybody and everything is magically plopped down into the world completely disjointed from all else.
Just as an atom or subatomic particle cannot escape reflective, dependent reality, nothing on either side of your microscope are immune to that reality, either.
You do realize, of course, that you are arguing for the adamant Christian-like mentality of ...everything suddenly, magically, independently appearing... in your application, definition and processing of "biology?"
Brings to mind how quantum physicists can't figure out the "spooky action" of "quantum entanglement." If they were Conscious, they could!
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 07:59:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8520dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8521https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwYMon, 23 Sep 2013 09:06:20 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8521dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8523We might ask ourselves whether self-awareness is possible without consciousness.
This one is easy. If by "self-awareness" one means self-consciousness, the answer is no. You can't be conscious of your consciousness if you have no consciousness to be conscious of. But if by "self-awareness" one means simply a capacity for internal feedback, the answer is yes. Any machine that monitors its own functioning could be said to be self-aware, without being conscious (but see: panpsychism).
A harder question is whether one can have consciousness without self-consciousness. Can you have a subjective state without being able to reflect on it? I'll let you think on that one.Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:58:25 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8523dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8525"The greatest illusion known to man is not recognized by most people as an illusion. In fact, your whole sense of self is founded on the assumption that it is not an illusion. But that doesn't make it real. The illusion is the sense of free will. Free will, formally, is a kind of mind over matter--conscious thought controlling the material brain. There's no evidence that this happens (or theory as to how it could happen). Instead, there is evidence that the feeling of deciding to move occurs after the brain has already unconsciously initiated movement. Consciousness is just a side effect of brain processes, along for the ride and thinking it's calling the shots."
"Even young kids recognize the difference between a real cookie and an imaginary cookie. One you can eat, the other you can't. So we quickly differentiate between mind and matter. Further, thanks to the illusion of free will, we have the sense that consciousness can control our physical body. And if it can act independently of its neural basis, perhaps (we suppose) it can exist independently of it too. So we conclude that even when the body dies, the soul will survive. Mind-body dualism leads to belief in the afterlife, in ghosts, an in spirits and deities."
Some thought of Matthew Huston
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:24:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8525Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8532" Consciousness is just a side effect of brain processes, along for the ride and thinking it's calling the shots." Lumbering robots I suppose. We have no goals or aspirations. If we eat a lot of bananas(brain food) accidentally then our brain would make some decisions for us that we have no control over at all. I am writing this not because I choose to but because my brain woke up today and said " write on the blog".
I have heard a lot of tales before however this one tops them all. The ability to make choses is the one think that everyone in the planet, in there right mind, has in common. I am not certain Matthew Huston is in his right mind. Civilisation it's self would not exist without someone making a choice.Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:53:39 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8532Jim Centihttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8538@Dustproduction and Billgreengeans
If you two place the name “Adyashanti” in the search engine of the IONS site and click “A QUIET REVOLUTION”, then download the PDF of a six page interview and carefully read the interview, you may both be surprised at the similarities between neuroscience position and spirituality.
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:02:30 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8538RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8541There is nothing whatsoever mystical, magical, illusional or delusional about ESP, telepathy or clairvoyance, and they can ALL actually be measured and their physics realized and taught. I know this for a fact, because it is part of what I do! I teach the REAL physics, and explain the actual physics, in detail, behind these and lots of other "weird" truths, such as traversing time and space, what and where actual wormholes are, answer quantum curiosities, etc..
They are actually not spiritual, either!
The REAL reality of the Universe, the REAL Universe, which isn't tucked away in some remote, inaccessible vault somewhere but rather constantly ongoing, is always going to appear "weird" and "impossible," etc., to those within the collective unconscious convention, including its scientists, etc., because they've inadvertently trapped themselves into a little world of invention and one-sided processing, and can't reason themselves back out of it because they are using conventional rules of distracted reasoning that are only in place to protect...more convention!
Anyone who tries to escape the boundaries of unconscious convention quickly has conventionally-dependent psychiatrists, religionists, etc., coming after them screaming mental illness, blasphemy, heretic! And...lost tenure, reputation, etc.. It's a scary place, as seen from someone capable of observing it for what it is! It's very reminiscent of a commune-ist type state, where extra-ordinary reasoning is not allowed and holds great penalties. All throughout human history, those who ...have... become Awakened to the REAL reality have been persecuted, imprisoned, destroyed, and (obviously) crucified for trying to compassionately help others out of that unconscious state.
All the while, the true Universal Process continues on, unabated, totally undaunted by the mistaken perceptions of the collective unconscious convention.
Because the Universe is multidimensional and mathematical, etc., blips and glimpses of the true processes taunting the unconscious, as it tries to redirect them simply by its own real physics, become the "weird" and "impossible" stuff that convention can't process in their narrow, invented rules of reasoning, and that is why they can neither accept them as genuine, natural physics processes, nor figure out how to "scientifically" measure them.Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:14:34 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8541Jim Centihttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8544@Dustproduction and Billgreengeans
If you happen to log on please read my post which was posted prior to the RealityOverScience post.
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:53:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8544dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8546http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZsDDseI5QI#t=286
The transparent avatar in your brain: Thomas Metzinger at TEDxBarcelona
Thomas Metzinger is a German philosopher. As of 2000 he holds the position of director of the theoretical philosophy group at the department of philosophy at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz and is an Adjunct Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies and on the advisory board of the Giordano Bruno Foundation.
In his talk Thomas analyses the concept of self and presents it as a process that can be tricked. Our self model comes from the ownership of our body and which can even sense phantom limbs. He will describe the self process by means of a set of experiments and examples that the audience can try themselves. These examples show that we can identify ourselves with a virtual avatar as in the famous movie.
The talk has been recorded at TEDxBarcelona on the 17th of May 2013. For more information please visit www.tedxbarcelona.comTue, 24 Sep 2013 17:09:47 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8546Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8547@ Jim Centi
Thanks for the link. It made me think of the saying" things are as they should be". Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:59:35 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8547Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8548@ dustproduction
Thanks for the link. It good to see the work that is going on.Wed, 25 Sep 2013 03:22:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8548Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8549@ dustproduction
"My view of the consciousness problem has expanded to beyond the mind/brain focus. While the brain appears to remain a key component, we must also view the brain as a part of a whole system. The heart and enteric systems both have neurons like the brain, and their interactions therefore are worth consideration. ". dustproduction
Wed, 25 Sep 2013 03:29:23 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8549dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8550........but my opinion is that our conscious experience is an emergent property of the brain,Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:00:49 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8550dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8551Re: “Adyashanti”
This person also has a website and many videos with his teachings.
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=watchvideo
After investigating some of this I find that there are conflicting terminologies between the teachings and a more clinical approach, that confuse certain issues about the self. One can compare it to the Metingzer video.
An example:
”After about six to eight months, you see this self-awareness starting in its embryonic form, and in this self-awareness, awareness itself seems to go through a process of evolution. First, it fixates and becomes “me awareness.” There’s a beauty to that, and there’s also something painful because the “me” starts to feel separate from the world around it. A “me consciousness” allows us to distinguish ourselves from others, which comes in handy. If we can’t distinguish ourselves from others, we can’t break away from mom and dad.
Developmental neuroscience looks to associate specific developments in the brain around attachment. Psychology might call this stage the development of the "I,' and not the "me" since the me aspect of self is reserved for the objective self, how others see us. The "I" is the subjective experience and this is actually what is being referred to in this statement.
Language plays an important role in the discussion. But the bottom line is that there is a biological basis, and we find it being referred to in the Metzinger video, and it is absent in the Adyashanti perceptive. Without this material explanation there is only a vague understanding of the processes and this can lend itself to the inaccuracies of faith in the things we don't understand. Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:26:06 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8551dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8552I would like to note that all the research that I pass along here is research I read and attempt to incorporate into my larger framework and understanding of the conscious experience.
"The ability to flexibly, rapidly, and accurately perform novel tasks is a hallmark of human behavior. In our everyday lives we are often faced with arbitrary instructions that we must understand and follow, and we are able to do so with remarkable ease. It has frequently been argued that this ability relies on symbol processing, which depends critically on the ability to represent variables and bind them to arbitrary values. Whereas symbol processing is a fundamental feature of all computer systems, it remains a mystery whether and how this ability is carried out by the brain. Here, we provide an example of how the structure and functioning of the prefrontal cortex/basal ganglia working memory system can support variable binding, through a form of indirection (akin to a pointer in computer science). We show how indirection enables the system to flexibly generalize its behavior substantially beyond its direct experience (i.e., systematicity). We argue that this provides a biologically plausible mechanism that approximates a key component of symbol processing, exhibiting both the flexibility, but also some of the limitations, that are associated with this ability in humans."
http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/18/1303547110Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:07:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8552Billgreenjeanshttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8553If you compare the two Adyashanti and Metzinger what is glaring to me, and remember I am not all that bright, but Metzinger is much more difficult to understand than Adyashanti. It seems as if Metzinger is talking in circles about something he is trying hard to find out about, whereas Adyashanti seems as if he is not searching for anything and doesn't want to search. Adyashanti to me has come to a place where he feels he understands "Being" and is content with his understanding. It is not that one is wrong and the other right. They both are doing what they want in the way the want and that's ok.
For me peace of mind is important. I have a boat load of peace of mind which I will share with anyone reading this. Just let me know if you want and need some. I apologise if I am writing something you don't understand. I don't read minds.
Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:46:28 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8553Jim Centihttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8554@Dustproduction,
Good link, when Thomas Metzinger says “I think there is no such thing as a self”, I realized there is the possibility that science and forms of spirituality may have found some common ground.
Then he adds “not as some romantic fantasy, but a matter of crystal clear logic and hard scientific fact”. This comment made me realize the nature of the problem you have often voiced with these discussions and why some have occasionally voiced a problem with your posting. It is a matter of what we value.
Scientifically minded individuals, such as you, place value only on scientific fact or what some credentialed authority has said. Spiritually minded individuals can see value in scientific fact, but they also often place value on some human subjective experiences.
For example, in the interview with Adyashanti he refers to abandonment of the personal self and coming in touch with the infinite. Other teachers have said that the path to liberation is abandonment of the ego or personal self.
If one places no value on human subjective experience, what is said in the previous paragraph is either ignored or seen as some romantic fantasy, even though the statements resonate with the content of Metzinger’s video and the neuroscience position that self is an illusion.
Perhaps my computer is slow, but I believe that due to the number of comments, this topic loads very slowly. There have been occasions when I avoided the topic because of this and I think a new topic should be created.
My idea of a good topic would be to focus on the "similarities" between science and spirituality rather than consistently argue their differences and inadequacies. A good place to start would be this idea of no self or that the personal self is illusion. I can even provide evidence of one spiritual tradition supports the notion that freewill is an illusion.
Since you are the scientific authority in these discussions, I think that you would be the most appropriate person to create such a topic. I and I believe others who have some degree of knowledge about spirituality could provide the spiritual side.
It may be a good idea to set guidelines that require individuals to stay on topic. The topic could eventually disappear into the void of the past as many topics have done, but I believe it is worth a shot. You could include comments or segments of comments from this topic, including your Matthew Huston quotes. What are your feelings on this?
Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:18:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8554dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8556Spirituality has a lot to gain by embracing science.
IONS's mission embraces the scientific method.
The suggestion of a discussion that examines the positive relationship between the two will be novel.
I would certain would contribute to such a discussion.Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:58:41 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8556Jim Centihttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8557Dustproduction,
Exploring your profile, you seem to be the most active participant in these discussions for well a year and yet, I can find no evidence that you have ever created a topic. I considered that you would welcome the opportunity for a new adventure by creating a topic.
From your comments it appears that you consider yourself to be a Scientific Materialists. Is that true?
Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:04:42 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8557Jim Centihttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8559EDIT
My previous post states “Exploring your profile, you seem to be the most active participant in these discussions for well a year and yet,’”. It should read well “over” a year.Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:43:26 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8559RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8562<Spirituality has a lot to gain by embracing science.
IONS's mission embraces the scientific method.
The suggestion of a discussion that examines the positive relationship between the two will be novel.
I would certain would contribute to such a discussion.> Dust
First, that "scientific method" has to be accurately defined and validated!
Consciousness/Enlightenment IS the application of the scientific method, but the REAL science, not convention's unconscious, imbalanced "science."
Since you so rigidly defend your "scientific method," you surely must accept that "junk in, junk out" renders whatever results from such research study to be essentially worthless. Therefore, from the very first breath into a research study, everything has to be, well, "perfect." Otherwise, it's already flawed from the "get go!"
That means that the very first step is to assure that the ...scientist... IS included in the outcome! It is the "scientist" who is conjuring up whatever is being considered for the study, and deciding what the research monies, grants, facilities, etc. will be used for.
Your "scientific method" leaves out the scientist, the "brain" and "mind," AND consciousness level of the scientist.Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:57:56 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8562RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8563Continued...
Neurologists, etc., studying the brain are doing so from their own brains, which immediately is similar to, say, a drug company insisting upon the safety and validity of their own drugs based on their own "research people" and not from independent researchers.
The Universe itself REQUIRES that its true physics be EXPERIENCED directly, because its Answers have to be ...Balanced... between withinXwithout. Conventional scientists are adamantly rigid about conveniently leaving themselves out of their work, when the inclusion of themselves in their work is precisely where they would find that required Balance, and with that Balance, the true Answers. Otherwise, their research results cannot help but reflect the lack of Balance that went into their research.Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:59:23 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8563RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8564Continued...
I provided for you (and others here) a direct pathway into "doing the work" that would guide you out of conventional processing/unconsciousness, and into directly ...experiencing... (as the Universe itself requires) the true Universal Physics Processes taking place, and since you wouldn't do that work, I suggested to you that you at least consider "dependent origination," such that the brain ...evolved... reflectively "in cohoots," shall we say, with all that is "not" the brain. You don't seem to want to "go there," either! Therefore, you want to persist that the brain did not evolve into being, and that it somehow magically and suddenly manifested itself, upon which all else in the Universe has arisen.
That is very Christian-like thinking...that it all just instantly appeared.
So, how do you explain the layers of old brain "material" superimposed upon one another in the center of the brain, one ancient brain upon another and another, that sufficed before the cortex found its way into being? If the brain is not interacting with its environment, what do you suppose is behind the evolution of its layered very old brains and a cortex, and everything else in there? How is it that it responds to, say, reuptake inhibitors at the synapse, when those inhibitors (etc.) came from outside itself? What's the purpose of "fight or flight," time and space, the autonomic nervous system, etc., if the brain is all that "matters."
Please respond in your own words, because with all the attention being given to you here, folks at least deserve that you take responsibility for your own processing and reasoning. Otherwise, it's "junk in, junk out" research, when "the scientist" persisting in rigidly controlling the conditions of that research refuses to own his own convictions.Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:00:21 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8564dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8566I would still like to maintain this thread for its intended question. There are other threads to address science, scientific materialism, and the scientific method.
@ROS
Additionally, we are all here for discussion, this isn't personal. Let's not offer each other personal advice as to what we should/can/need to do. Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:37:18 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8566RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8570Let's not offer each other personal advice as to what we should/can/need to do.
Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:53:32 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8570dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8573"Unconscious stimuli can trigger affective responses, and there is some evidence that the affective response itself can remain unconscious; nonetheless, the allocation of attention can modulate affective processing. Even when an emotion and its triggering stimulus are both conscious, we may not appreciate the causal relationship between stimulus and emotion. Such metaconscious judgments depend in part on inference from imperfect cues, generating misattributions under special conditions. Furthermore, the process of forming metaconscious judgments about emotional states can influence those very states."
S. Sher, P. Winkielman
University of California, San Diego, CA, USAFri, 27 Sep 2013 08:19:07 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8573RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8582And in you own words, that says...?... to you?
Christians are really good at quoting the Bible at people as hard "evidence," but when you ask them what they just said, and what it all means, they haven't a clue and return with yet another and another Bible quote. A scientist likewise externally dependent always has somebody else to hide behind, someone else to blame, holding onto external authority, rather than developing a strong enough internal authority to explain what it all means, where it really counts, when all is said and done. A huge part of the brain is being left out, with all that rote behavior.
Defend your own thesis. Wear your own authority, and explain...
What did your article just say to you?Sat, 28 Sep 2013 06:20:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8582dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8590 @ROS This reply sounded less then "superConscious."
When I've needed to better understand a cited reference, I have written directly to a professor. I have that advantage over bible quoting christians.
Sat, 28 Sep 2013 21:12:04 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8590RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8594Then write "directly" to us, here!Sun, 29 Sep 2013 07:45:15 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8594dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8598Address the topicSun, 29 Sep 2013 20:31:11 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8598RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8611We are discussing the topic!
Brain research, using the scientific method.
Assuring against "junk in, junk out," the scientific method is being explored for its authenticity and validity.
Do you really want to just go into that research on..."faith?"
If so, then...discuss away, ignore all questioning of your scientific method, and those of us who choose otherwise will be the "control" aspect of that research.
You do use controls in your scientific research, right?
So, let's draw a line in the sand...
________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, I am the "Control" aspect of the research. Intrigue away!Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:42:44 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8611dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8616Let's repeat this yet again:
"
Let us look again at the question that are being asked, the ones in the article, that science must answer?
1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:07:51 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8616dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8618Re: "The assumption that mind and memory are stored in the brain is a false premise. The brain is more like a television set that receives messages from the memory and mind."
How does this work again? Why, and how, do the memories change?
"Human memory constantly adapts and moulds itself to fit the world. Now an art project hopes to highlight just how fallible our recollections are."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24286258
"Although this is common knowledge within psychology and widely accepted by anybody who has studied the literature, it's not widely known about in society more generally," he says.
"There are still people who believe memory works like a video camera as well as people who accept the Freudian notion of repression - that when something terrible happens the memory is shoved down into the subconscious."
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:22:17 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8618dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8619A simple test
Say the following words to a friend: bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, wake, snooze, blanket, doze, slumber, sore, nap, peace, yawn and drowsy
Later, ask your friend to recall the words they heard
How many incorrectly listed sleep as one of the initially given words?
A study found that participants recall the word sleep with about the same probability that they remember other words from the list.Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:22:37 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8619RealityOverSciencehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8622The brain is an ambassador for Universal Truth, a mathematical relay station that, on its behalf, persists in trying to restore Balance.
If you go right, it motivates you to go left.
If you think too much, leaning far to your intellectual side, it motivates you to your own inverse, feelings.
Trying to memorize long lists, most folks tend to remember the first and last words. This reflects the imbalance in the process, because rote repetition leaves out the heart, the "middle way," the meaningfulness of those words. People on TV talk shows who memorize really long lists, or the names of everyone in the audience, admit to applying some form of meaningfulness to each word or name. The word "sleep" would be the meaningful Balance expressing itself. Like hypnotism, if the missing element is kept "missing," the person will actually ...do... it, instead.
Subliminal ads work that way.
Similar would be AI, (artificial intelligence), automaticity, roboticism, such that robots need to learn to *reflect* the *reflection,* and on their own, not just dutifully repeat.
There's an inescapable mathematics involved, that the Universe never relents. But at that level, it has its own inverse to that math, pushing it to an even higher level. Whether a person aligns himselfXherself with it, or persists in denial of it, it's all reflectionXreflection.
The brain and mind relay determinismXdeterminism, in other words.
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:04:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8622dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8623When this question gets asked no one response. Its is the type of question that separates the ones that did the homework from that didn't.
Let us look again at the question that are being asked, the ones in the article, that science must answer?
1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness? Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:18:48 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8623dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8667When this question is posed, "What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?" there is no discussion because it requires a knowledge of science that contributors here lack.
Exposing this deficiency opens one up to attack, even though it is acknowledged that IONS's embrace of scientific research requires such knowledge.
How do others explain this paradox?Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:36:54 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8667dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8695Let's again visit the issue of the split brain, and how a division of consciousness seems to occur. If consciousness is NOT an emergent property, why would this happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64
Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god. (Clip taken from talk at 2006 Beyond Belief Conference, link below)
Link to Ramachandran's full talk (about 39 minutes into the video):
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs...Mon, 07 Oct 2013 11:44:26 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8695dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8778Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain
The conservation of sleep across all animal species suggests that sleep serves a vital function.
We here report that sleep has a critical function in ensuring metabolic homeostasis. Using real-time assessments of tetramethylammonium diffusion and two-photon imaging in live mice, we show that natural sleep or anesthesia are associated with a 60% increase in the interstitial space, resulting in a striking increase in convective exchange of cerebrospinal fluid with interstitial fluid. In turn, convective fluxes of interstitial fluid increased the rate of β-amyloid clearance during sleep.
Thus, the restorative function of sleep may be a consequence of the enhanced removal of potentially neurotoxic waste products that accumulate in the awake central nervous system.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/373
Sun, 20 Oct 2013 20:24:00 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8778dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8780UCLA psychologists have used brain-imaging techniques to study what happens to the human brain when it slips into unconsciousness.
Their research, published in the online open-access journal PLOS Computational Biology, is an initial step toward developing a scientific definition of consciousness, Images of the scan are shown and some connection strength across sections of the brain provided. They raise the question at the end in the context of brain damage.
Here is the link: http://www.kurzweilai.net/is-a-scientific-definition-of-consciousness-possible?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9bfb5df872-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-9bfb5df872-281929453Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:04:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8780dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8783Following up of my last post "the finding shows that consciousness does not “live” in a particular place in our brain but rather “arises from the mode in which billions of neurons communicate with one another,”Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:12:58 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8783dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8784Learn more about the brain and its parts: http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/learning-strategies/Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:49:57 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8784dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8790An essay by Md. Moulude Hossain reviewed the writing of Paulo Freire; 1921-1997, on education and included these brief points about consciousness.
According to Paulo Freire there are two views on humankind.
One view conceives of humans as objects, they are mouldable and adaptable.
Brief Explanation: On this view humans can be compared with animals. They act and obey without taking time to reflect. An animal cannot see itself as “I” against a “not I”, or in other words it cannot see itself separate from this world. If human beings are seen as objects, they are submerged in the world. They have not been given a chance of self-reflection.
The other view sees humans as subjects, independent beings, able to transcend and recreate the world.
Brief Explanation: On this view, human beings are seen as subjects. They can think and reflect for themselves and they can dissociate from the world. The essential difference between humans and animals is that humans can operate in the world through action and reflection.
We can consider the following:
The Conscious Mind is the analytical and critical part of our brain that governs our awareness or consciousness at any point in time. It is the final processing point for our decisions, actions or reactions in daily life which we are aware that we are making.
The Subconscious Mind is the ‘deeper’ part of the mind that is responsible for processing thousands of things at any one time and for storing everything we have experienced in our lives in differing degrees of importance.
Magical Consciousness
Such people adapt themselves defenselessly and passively to the expectations of a superior force: they are not conscious of the socio-economic contradictions within this society: they accept life for what it is and don’t question injustices done to their lives. They are silent and docile.
Naive Consciousness
This involves gaining insight into and becoming aware of one’s own problems, but without making connections with the world outside- in other words individualising problems. Problems are more or less seen as coincidences, “accidents”.
Critical Consciousness
Such people stop looking at problem as mostly individual accidents but see them more as structural problems. Critical consciousness involves making connections with the socio-economic contradictions in society. It means looking at reality and recognising such contradictions as a fact.
Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:02:08 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8790dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8796This may seem a little off topic, but these two TEDTalks discuss two aspects of the brain which are worth considering when it comes to our conscious experience; pleasure and happiness. An understanding of both in scientific terms can define the who we are and why we do what we do.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:31:05 -0700http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8796dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8841http://www.hulu.com/watch/307444
This is an excellent discussionMon, 04 Nov 2013 18:19:56 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8841dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8872I have posed this question before but those that subscribe to a spiritualist form of consciousness have not response. Science, in its evolutionary understanding of our species does.
Human Hybrids; May 2013; Scientific American Magazine; by Michael F. Hammer; 6 Page(s)
It is hard to imagine today, but for most of humankind's evolutionary history, multiple humanlike species shared the earth. As recently as 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens lived alongside several kindred forms, including the Neandertals and tiny Homo floresiensis. For decades scientists have debated exactly how H. sapiens originated and came to be the last human species standing. Thanks in large part to genetic studies in the 1980s, one theory emerged as the clear front-runner. In this view, anatomically modern humans arose in Africa and spread out across the rest of the Old World, completely replacing the existing archaic groups. Exactly how this novel form became the last human species on the earth is mysterious. Perhaps the invaders killed off the natives they encountered, or outcompeted the strangers on their own turf, or simply reproduced at a higher rate. However it happened, the newcomers seemed to have eliminated their competitors without interbreeding with them.
This recent African Replacement model, as it is known, has essentially served as the modern human origins paradigm for the past 25 years. Yet mounting evidence indicates that it is wrong. Recent advances in DNA-sequencing technology have enabled researchers to dramatically scale up data collection from living people as well as from extinct species. Analyses of these data with increasingly sophisticated computational tools indicate that the story of our family history is not as simple as most experts thought. It turns out that people today carry DNA inherited from Neandertals and other archaic humans, revealing that early H. sapiens mated with these other species and produced fertile offspring who were able to hand this genetic legacy down through thousands of generations. In addition to upsetting the conventional wisdom about our origins, the discoveries are driving new inquiries into how extensive the interbreeding was, which geographical areas it occurred in and whether modern humans show signs of benefiting from any of the genetic contributions from our prehistoric cousins.Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:27:58 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8872dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8873
DNA analyses finds early Homo sapiens mated with other human species and hint that such interbreeding played a key role in the trumph of "our kind."
What does this tell us about consciousness?Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:32:11 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8873dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8876Basically, we sense what-we-sense without knowing it and know what-we-know without sensing it. These two sources or systems evolved naturally and they are what we ultimately can understand as object and subject. This separation is helpful to our critique of true judgment, since only precise coordination "here and now" between material space-time and immaterial culture-history is true knowing what-we-sense and sensing what-we-know. Both systems operate in all directions, although their synthesis only operates at one place and moment in space/culture and time/history, the content of what-is-sensed of the environment/other/reality and what-is-known by the organism/self/belief. The "rest" of this content, "not here and not now" exists in the systems separately, where and when we cannot know them (sensing what-is-sensed is not knowing what-is-sensed) and cannot sense them (knowing what-is-known is not sensing what-is-known), however we can trust they are "there and then".Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:22:55 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8876Nicolehttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8888http://www.youwealthrevolution.com/cmd.php?af=1563505Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:25:26 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8888dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8900 A paper published in a special edition of the journal Science proposes a novel understanding of brain architecture using a network representation of connections within the primate cortex. Zoltán Toroczkai, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame and co-director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Network Science and Applications, is a co-author of the paper "Cortical High-Density Counterstream Architectures."
http://www.sbri.fr/files/publications/markov%2013%20science.pdf
Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:55:12 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8900frequencytunerhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8932If the mind is the thinker, then consciousness is the thought. So do we create thoughts or simply become aware of their existence? Trying to grasp at the abstractness of this will strain the brain on one side, but intuitively resonate with the other. Consciousness is such a vague term to describe something which is beyond words, it is like trying to catch stars in a butterfly net.
Another example is invisible ink, under normal white light nothing is visible, or more properly speaking, the viewer is unconscious of the ink. Change the frequency of the light that is illuminating the ink to ultraviolet and instantly the viewer becomes conscious of it: it becomes visible. The point is that the ink was always there. Was it the perception of the viewer or the light illuminating it that made it visible? As with rainbows, only those eyes with the proper receptors can become conscious of it. The point here is that consciousness, the more one tries to understand it, will ultimately become the answer to every question because this consciousness is merely the metaphoric 'tip of the iceberg'. In the quantum multiverse of infinite potentialities, this iceberg of consciousness is merely a quark popping into and back out of existence, like a fish jumping out of the water.Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:41:05 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8932dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8936“In terms of brain function, the difference between being conscious and unconscious is a bit like the difference between driving from Los Angeles to New York in a straight line versus having to cover the same route hopping on and off several buses that force you to take a ‘zig-zag’ route and stop in several places,” said lead study author Martin Monti, an assistant professor of psychology and neurosurgery at UCLA, and his colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study how the flow of information in the brains of 12 healthy volunteers changed as they lost consciousness under anesthesia with propofol.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/is-a-scientific-definition-of-consciousness-possible?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9bfb5df872-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6de721fb33-9bfb5df872-281929453
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:54:14 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8936frequencytunerhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8939Excellent analogy, wonderful example. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is the same.Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:08:43 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8939dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8986 It appears that science IS answering these questions. They will continue to do so. It is time to conclude this thread and move on.
I am pleased that this thread has more comments than any other in the Discussion.
Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:11:43 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_8986dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9025What is Consciousness Anyway?
While I was reading a few articles at the journal "Frontiers" website I discovered a link to this fine blog story that posed this question.
I will ad that my own current views are reflected in this excerpt.
Representationalism
"This is a rubric for ideas in which consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's role of monitoring the environment and the body's own internal states using virtual representations created in the brain. Combined with temporal memories of previous states (memory), and projections of futures states (imagination) and representing the observing subject as a virtual self, consciousness is the overall effect of these functions. This emerges particularly from the work of Antonio Damasio and Thomas Metzinger and is closest to my own understanding of what consciousness is or does."
http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-consciousness-anyway.htmlFri, 22 Nov 2013 20:05:14 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9025dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9222Someone in another discussion asked for proof that science is not embraced by most that comment in the conversations. I see this conversation as demonstrating this point. Here is an applicable reference of consciousness:
"Since William James's characterization of self-consciousness in the 19th century (James, 1890/1950), the psychological “self” has been the subject of much intrigue in the world of psychology, philosophy, and more recently, neuroscience. It has been proposed that the processing and integration of body-related information is important to develop a comprehensive neurobiological model of self-consciousness (Damasio, 2000; Jeannerod, 2006; Craig, 2009; Blanke, 2012). Recent advances in virtual reality (VR) technologies have enabled the investigation of bodily self-consciousness by providing subjects with ambiguous multisensory information about the location and appearance of their own body (Serino et al., 2008; Salomon et al., 2009, 2012). This has made it possible to study three important aspects of bodily self-consciousness and how they relate to the processing of bodily signals: self-identification with the body (the experience of owning a body), self-location (the experience of where I am in space), and first-person perspective (the experience of from where I perceive) (Blanke, 2012; Pfeiffer et al., 2013)."
It builds its case by citing the works of other scientist in no less then 10 other research papers.
Read the research however, since it explores a interesting point regarding mind and body.
Full body illusion is associated with widespread skin temperature reduction
"A central feature of our consciousness is the experience of the self as a unified entity residing in a physical body, termed bodily self-consciousness. This phenomenon includes aspects such as the sense of owning a body (also known as body ownership) and has been suggested to arise from the integration of sensory signals from the body. Several studies have shown that temporally synchronous tactile stimulation of the real body and visual stimulation of a fake or virtual body can induce changes in bodily self-consciousness, typically resulting in a sense of illusory ownership over the fake body."Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:25:59 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9222dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9223Oh, the link: http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00065/fullWed, 04 Dec 2013 18:27:17 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9223wbilly3814http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9224I have a text which describes a unique definition for consciousness that I am making avilable to all IONS members for free. It is 800 pages of Quantum Theory, the history of it, most particularly where and how the idea that consciousness plays a role in 'painting the universe into being' came from, and how it got lost along the way, bringing about speculative approaches to Quantum Physics that exclude consciousness from the equations altogether, even mocking the idea.
It is a great history lesson in Quantum Theory and Physics mellowed down to the lay reader's ability to fully grasp.
The second half of the text puts this unique defintion back into Quantum Theory, and describes the physics as the founders had saught to do, but didn't live to do, because they could not find this definition for cosnsciousness suitable within the framework of Quantum Physics, the Religions and Philosophies of Man.
If you would like a copy (free) email me at wbilly3814@yahoo.com, put IONS Memebr in the subject line, and let me know if you would like a pdf, kindle, or epub.
thank you
william joseph brayThu, 05 Dec 2013 10:40:07 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9224dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9246"XXXXXXXX made an interesting contribution to our discussion of “Is a scientific definition of consciousness possible?” by referencing: Salomon, Lim, Pfeiffer, Gassert and Blanke, Full body illusion is associated with widespread skin temperature reduction, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 25 July 2013. They start out with the following comment: “Recent advances in virtual reality (VR) technologies have enabled the investigation of bodily self-consciousness by providing subjects with ambiguous multisensory information about the location and appearance of their own body…. This has made it possible to study three important aspects of bodily self-consciousness and how they relate to the processing of bodily signals: self-identification with the body (the experience of owning a body), self-location (the experience of where I am in space), and first-person perspective (the experience of from where I perceive)….” Fri, 06 Dec 2013 23:57:22 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9246wbilly3814http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9264There are mathematical axioms, immutable, absolute, not open to opinion. One such axiom is written in Larson, Calculus, 9th edition, Theorem 3.9 regarding limits at infinity. If we take a finite number, n, and divide it by x, as x approaches infinity the numeric result of n/x as x approaches infinity = 0. That is axiom. Another axiom is –infinity = +infinity, meaning that infinity can have no lower boundary, and infinity/n = infinity, meaning that if you take a slice of an infinite thing you have an infinitely large slice.
The universe has a lower boundary, the Big Bang. It is therefore disqualified as being infinite even if it increases without bound, we call that an asymptote. The universe has no value with respect to linear time one instant beyond the present. The present is actually a slice of space-time 10^-44 seconds thick. This is the scaffold of Leonard Susskind’s Holographic Principle of Physical Cosmology. We exist in a 2 dimensional construct that appears to have 3 dimensional information. The 3 dimensional aspect we perceive is the linear progression of time; which is incorrect, the seeming forward progression of time is actually an accumulation of events in the past. The only common element they share is the moment of creation, the Big Bang. That is the Holographic Principle of Physical Cosmology.
Most models, such as membrane theory and so on, require an infinite system. If there exists a system, regardless of its proximity to this universe, that is not finite, then the physical cosmos we perceive must conform to the axiom; n/infinity = 0. There is no way out of it. N refers to this finite cosmos, bound on both sides by the Big Bang and the upper limit, the present, with respect to a non-finite system, does not exist, its value must conform to n/infinity = 0.
The idea that the universe does not truly exist has been a popular idea over many millennia, in many religions, and iterated by the greatest philosophers throughout history. And, the founders of Quantum Theory and more recent power given to us by technology unprecedented in human history show us truly that is you look closer and closer at a thing, you find ‘nothing.’
That thing you are most certain of is your ‘self.’ There is nothing you are more certain of, even if it sucks. You therefore cannot conform to the arrangement of the equation n/infinity = 0 (you do not truly exist), you must therefore satisfy the arrangement infinity/n = infinity (you truly exist). This then, requires that you are an infinite being, no beginning and no end. It is not possible for consciousness to be an artifact of this finite universe or anything in it, including your physical brain.
It is not possible to ‘fit’ an infinite thing (you) inside of a finite box (this universe). You are not here.
You can email me at wbilly3814@yahoo.com if you are interested in a free copy of the work, which I must warn you is 800 pages of Quantum Theory, Philosophy, and Religion.
Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:14:23 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9264dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9265When 'you' is not 'here' no one reads the comment.Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:48:28 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9265wbilly3814http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9279Clever. Unfortunately your response suggests that we are limited to communicating via text through an electronic conduit. Electrons achieve this by exchanging virtual photons that arise out of the quantum dynamic vacuum, and exist in a timeless domain. The ‘real’ force of a bar magnet is an example of this. Electrons cannot communicate information by any other known means.
Face-to-face, a verbal communications relies on moving air molecules, oxygen and nitrogen, via Vandervalls forces between the valance electrons in the gases, again, by exchanging virtual photons that exist in a timeless domain. Hand signals, signs, all visual information is transferred via ‘real’ photons, which have the potential to exist indefinitely, however, they exist in a domain that is infinitely dilated, meaning that they cannot exist in this domain.
Such is the case for the ‘electro-chemical’ activity in your own brain, which delivered such a clever come-back.
You might try learning the subject before engaging in satire.
You are in a forum discussing the esoteric subject of consciousness, which requires more than speculation, and certainly displaying some sense of humility, not mockery; which lacked any logic or forethought, relying on anonymity.
I’m sorry you don’t like either of my answers. However, I would recommend as an IONS member you hold to a higher standard of communication. Dr. Radin’s work and effort in establishing this site, this forum, the exchange of information, is a valuable asset and shouldn’t be treated trivially. There are people trying to discuss, in some cases, issues that trouble them deeply, or otherwise occupy them to the extent that they seek out a place such as this to communicate with others seeking the same answers.
wjb
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 17:03:22 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9279dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9280Re: "You are in a forum discussing the esoteric subject of consciousness"
To paraphrase Antonio Demasio, when it comes to consciousness, it's all theory.
To be concise about my comments here, I have been trying to promote the discussion that is posted here, "Consciousness: The questions science must answer." (see the link) This discussion has more comments than any other discussion on this site. And if you have read the any of the comments here it would be evident that my knowledge of the subject is quite limited, unlike yours.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out how that response addresses the discussion. I'm not afraid to admit it was lost on me, but I did forward it along to a friend with a PhD of Mathematics and Neuroscience and he will perhaps me with some clues.
Regarding the rest of your comments, if you are seeking to impose a standard of some sort, I, for one, would welcome it. It would be productive and constructive.
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 17:49:30 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9280dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9288Re: Dr. William Bray, Quantum Physics Incompatible With Atheists Ideas About Intelligent Design and Consciousness
"...wish we knew more about him and his background and credentials.."
http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/4056-180-dr-william-bray-quantum-physics-incompatible-atheists-ideas-about-intelligent-design-consciousness-podc-10.html
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 20:40:55 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9288dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9292"After doing some superficial research on Mr. Bray, I’ve become quite skeptical:
There are no recommendations/testimonials from peers on the inside or backside covers of the book.
Googling on “William Joseph Bray” doesn’t reveal that much.
He’s got a facebook page, but I’m not a member so I didn’t get to see it.
I discovered his web site, and his credentials seem to be too extensive to be believable.
Nevertheless, the book is a fascinatingly refreshing and novel read. In a nutshell, his main theme is that consciousness is not caused by bio-chemical processes in the brain, it’s quite the opposite. Infinite consciousness lies outside of the finite physical universe and it thus paints the universe into being by “collapsing the wavefunction“. Consciousness is the ultimate observer and it creates you and me and everything else in the universe."
http://bulldozer00.com/2012/01/09/discrete-not-continuous/
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 20:50:00 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9292dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9294I should add here that the previous post need to be read in its entirety. It includes comments by William Bray.
I will also add that from what I have read it the net, Bray's book seems interesting to some, by it is just a theory as is all research on consciousness at this point.
I invite William to join the discussion regarding NDE and offer a theory on how memory of such events are retain in the brain Sun, 08 Dec 2013 21:16:08 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9294wbilly3814http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9331Dear Dust,
I would love discussing NDEs, and the math i am trying to describe. Keep in mind that this forum is limited in the number of words you can put in a post, and it doesn't accept math edits, they have to be described verbally, which is exceedingly diificult. My former post was 10,000 characters, which i had to clip down to 3000, leaving a very incomplete picture. i know, it sucks.
I am using the Larson, calculus, 9th edition definition for limits at infinity as the basis for my argument on this topic. If you type 'quantum physics' in at amazon you'll see that this text is in the top ten in quantum physaics, and it has been so for about 5 years now. It's an extremely large 800 page text, which I am making free to IONS members so that you can all discuss the content.
You can go to 4shared.com login as wbilly3814@yahoo.com password mrspock1 and download the pdf qp ftl 04dec13a.pdf
I think there is enough information in the introduction to begin a discussion. Please don't mess with the other files there because there are other people using that shared area. However, there is a short text, 'Zenos Arrow' which you may find interesting. It describes the Quantum
Zeno Effect and a practical application.
Please direct me to the NDE discussion as there are too many to sort through here.
thank you
wjbWed, 11 Dec 2013 08:17:57 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9331wbilly3814http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9334p.s.
i also uploaded the kindle as qpftl 08dec13.mobi (you can download kindle reader for free from amazon for your pc which is much better than a pdf) and larson calculus 9th edition so you can see theorem 3.10
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:59:04 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9334dustproductionhttp://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9342Try this conversation. http://noetic.org/discussions/open/265/Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:22:56 -0800http://noetic.org/discussions/community-groups/405/#comment_9342